You cannot be "conservative" and believe women should have any say in politics. Once you understand this to be true, then you'll easily be able to figure out how "conservative" a political group involving only women is.
For the majority due to a higher collectivist bias, probably but there are some great conservative women around.
The biggest historical one would probably be Olga of Kiev, what's more conservative than raising your son to be a great leader and sticking by your husband with a 'till death do us part.....and if anyone is the cause of your death, I'm genociding their whole fucking society!'
Exceptions don't make the rule. Even though exceptional women do exist, we would be better off if we pretended these women didn't exist and treated all women as inferior to men rather than trying to figure out who the exceptional women are and are not.
Listen, if we find out there's another badass bitch like that living in this world right now, I'm giving the same rights as us guys, as I like having my reproductive organs intact and in working order.
Plus she'd be WAY more conservative than a lot of men (points to those in blue cities)
How will you determine another woman like that? The problem is that every woman will claim they are like that and you will be deceived and then we'll end up worse off, aka now. The only way to ensure we don't get a now is to ban all women from politics, regardless of their merit. And besides, even Olga would have served a greater purpose if she simply supported a man and raised children without partaking in industry or politics. For every Olga there are exceptional individual men who would be better at politics than even her.
It seems a very similar parallel to "Based Black Man": within a proper (functional) environment they can hold even higher standards than the average man. But given improper incentives...well we see the effects today.
Me and Imp are both about as "anti-women" and "pro-men" as they come but yes, we seem to have very different conceptions of what the ideal to realize that is.
I would say I am very much the pinnacle of what a pure patriarchy would be while still trying to sustain and grow a civilization by incorporating women in said society, whereas Imp seems to be more focused on entirely removing men from having any relationship to women whatsoever regardless of the impacts this would have on society or its sustainability.
Imp seems to be more focused on entirely removing men from having any relationship to women whatsoever regardless of the impacts this would have on society or its sustainability.
He claims that is a tactic to pressure women into doing what we want. If you point out that it won't work because women would indeed let the species be destroyed to keep acting however the hell they want to act, he will simply say that proves he is right about women.
Yes, I've had the argument with him before. I think it's a very weak spot in his thinking. My take is that he's so blinded by his anger at women (justified anger, imo) enough he wants to completely remove anything to do with them before he cares to think of anything surrounding this. He's set on this goal and perhaps if this is ever realized then he'd focus on figuring things out.
A decent comparison might be two tribes that have warned with each other for decades and are in the peak of the war. Someone in the tribe says "are you sure we should kill all the men, what about rebuilding after the war, won't we need all the manpower we can get? Wouldn't enslaving them make more sense?" But everyone is so blinded by their rage at their enemy they can't think this far ahead and completely dismiss the idea. Only after the war and the implications of it are starting to be realized might someone be like hmm maybe we should have enslaved the men.
As a liberal, he wants "liberation" from his own "gender role." He hides this behind claims of strategy or spite, but that's a huge motivation for him.
You cannot be "conservative" and believe women should have any say in politics. Once you understand this to be true, then you'll easily be able to figure out how "conservative" a political group involving only women is.
For the majority due to a higher collectivist bias, probably but there are some great conservative women around.
The biggest historical one would probably be Olga of Kiev, what's more conservative than raising your son to be a great leader and sticking by your husband with a 'till death do us part.....and if anyone is the cause of your death, I'm genociding their whole fucking society!'
Exceptions don't make the rule. Even though exceptional women do exist, we would be better off if we pretended these women didn't exist and treated all women as inferior to men rather than trying to figure out who the exceptional women are and are not.
Listen, if we find out there's another badass bitch like that living in this world right now, I'm giving the same rights as us guys, as I like having my reproductive organs intact and in working order.
Plus she'd be WAY more conservative than a lot of men (points to those in blue cities)
How will you determine another woman like that? The problem is that every woman will claim they are like that and you will be deceived and then we'll end up worse off, aka now. The only way to ensure we don't get a now is to ban all women from politics, regardless of their merit. And besides, even Olga would have served a greater purpose if she simply supported a man and raised children without partaking in industry or politics. For every Olga there are exceptional individual men who would be better at politics than even her.
Once you allow exceptions, you are admitting its just your personal bias and how much you like them defining who is and isn't worthy.
It seems a very similar parallel to "Based Black Man": within a proper (functional) environment they can hold even higher standards than the average man. But given improper incentives...well we see the effects today.
It's weird watching this sentiment contrast with TheImp's "women did Nazism."
Me and Imp are both about as "anti-women" and "pro-men" as they come but yes, we seem to have very different conceptions of what the ideal to realize that is.
I would say I am very much the pinnacle of what a pure patriarchy would be while still trying to sustain and grow a civilization by incorporating women in said society, whereas Imp seems to be more focused on entirely removing men from having any relationship to women whatsoever regardless of the impacts this would have on society or its sustainability.
He claims that is a tactic to pressure women into doing what we want. If you point out that it won't work because women would indeed let the species be destroyed to keep acting however the hell they want to act, he will simply say that proves he is right about women.
Yes, I've had the argument with him before. I think it's a very weak spot in his thinking. My take is that he's so blinded by his anger at women (justified anger, imo) enough he wants to completely remove anything to do with them before he cares to think of anything surrounding this. He's set on this goal and perhaps if this is ever realized then he'd focus on figuring things out.
A decent comparison might be two tribes that have warned with each other for decades and are in the peak of the war. Someone in the tribe says "are you sure we should kill all the men, what about rebuilding after the war, won't we need all the manpower we can get? Wouldn't enslaving them make more sense?" But everyone is so blinded by their rage at their enemy they can't think this far ahead and completely dismiss the idea. Only after the war and the implications of it are starting to be realized might someone be like hmm maybe we should have enslaved the men.
As a liberal, he wants "liberation" from his own "gender role." He hides this behind claims of strategy or spite, but that's a huge motivation for him.