Why the 19th should be repealed

[hwtbd1984]

Throughout human history, women and only women were ever given a choice by the invading armies: Offer themselves or die.
Meaning, the women that possessed traits that would lead them to give themselves away to their own family's executioners- were the only ones that had a chance to procreate.

This is why men are sexually attracted to these same traits- mainly subservience and meekness. If the women fought and most assuredly would die, they'd serve no evolutionary benefit, being of little to no procreational/preservational use to the defenders as well as the invaders. Whereas submitting was always a direct procreational benefit to the invaders.

And historically, if only men could successfully fend off an attack, even risking death, his offspring would have a higher chance of survival, as well as the woman, in turn making masculine traits like valor and courage sexually desirable to women, as well as preservationally desirable to both women and his offspring.

In today's society, men and women look down on other men that display subservient traits because it serves no evolutionary benefit to either.
These selected-for traits that can also be looked at as treasonous and dishonorable as well as open and nurturing- tho desirable in an evolutionary sense, are not desirable when influencing national policy, and only opens us up to the other foreign invaders that will happily fulfill those "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies".

Full circle.

Traditional gender roles are the cause of, and result of themselves. By societies taking these exact same traits that could easily destroy a society and harnessing them as the positive traits that they actually are.

It's up to men to protect our women from selling us, and themselves out.

 

[Craig234]

Where do these monsters come form? I thought Neanderthals had gone extinct.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Throughout human history, women and only women were ever given a choice by the invading armies: Offer themselves or die.
Meaning, the women that possessed traits that would lead them to give themselves away to their own family's executioners- were the only ones that had a chance to procreate.

This is why men are sexually attracted to these same traits- mainly subservience and meekness. If the women fought and most assuredly would die, they'd serve no evolutionary benefit, being of little to no procreational/preservational use to the defenders as well as the invaders. Whereas submitting was always a direct procreational benefit to the invaders.

And historically, if only men could successfully fend off an attack, even risking death, his offspring would have a higher chance of survival, as well as the woman, in turn making masculine traits like valor and courage sexually desirable to women, as well as preservationally desirable to both women and his offspring.

In today's society, men and women look down on other men that display subservient traits because it serves no evolutionary benefit to either.
These selected-for traits that can also be looked at as treasonous and dishonorable as well as open and nurturing- tho desirable in an evolutionary sense, are not desirable when influencing national policy, and only opens us up to the other foreign invaders that will happily fulfill those "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies".

Full circle.

Traditional gender roles are the cause of, and result of themselves. By societies taking these exact same traits that could easily destroy a society and harnessing them as the positive traits that they actually are.

It's up to men to protect our women from selling us, and themselves out.

Yeah, well liberals think 60 IQ peasants who live in mud huts should be able to immigrate and vote because it's clear they would understand the nuances of western democracy.

Sorry man, but no amount of esoteric Darwinian explanation for why women shouldn't be able to vote is going to convince these people that democracy is cringe and lame.

 

[hwtbd1984]

Where do these monsters come form? I thought Neanderthals had gone extinct.

neanderthal admixture = high iq

 

[hwtbd1984]

Yeah, well liberals think 60 IQ peasants who live in mud huts should be able to immigrate and vote because it's clear they would understand the nuances of western democracy.

Sorry man, but no amount of esoteric Darwinian explanation for why women shouldn't be able to vote is going to convince these people that democracy is cringe and lame.

the founding fathers didn't restrict voting out of bigotry. they understood, whether consciously or unconciously, how different demographics exhibit differing behavioral tendencies, and the ultimate consequence of magnifying these tendencies.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

the founding fathers didn't restrict voting out of bigotry. they understood, whether consciously or unconciously, how different demographics exhibit differing behavioral tendencies, and the ultimate consequence of magnifying these tendencies.

Obviously. European global hegemony was self-evident and considered common sense. There weren't armchair psychologist "intellectuals" who had all of these nuanced explanations for why Europe was Europe while sub-sahara hadn't even invented the spoked wheel or two-story housing.

 

[hwtbd1984]

Obviously. European global hegemony was self-evident and considered common sense. There weren't armchair psychologist "intellectuals" who had all of these nuanced explanations for why Europe was Europe while sub-sahara hadn't even invented the spoked wheel or two-story housing.

dude, are we even in the same thread?

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

dude, are we even in the same thread?

you mentioned demographics lol.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

you sound like someone that just got redpilled and is now looking for any excuse to talk about it race. you should reread the op. this has nothing to do with race.

i wasn't talking about just race lmao. see my first post.

in any case, idk who the op is going to convince which was the point of my first post. if you're at the point where you have to argue and explain *why* certain demographics shouldn't be able to vote, the system has already failed you as is.

 

[lurchadams]

This country would be in much better shape had Democratic women been in charge since the 80's. We started going downhill when the Republicans (now, the trumpublicans) decided to start waging a racist culture war with their "southern strategy" that trump and his loyal knuckle-draggers are now doing, except on steroids!

 

[Lisa]

Throughout human history, women and only women were ever given a choice by the invading armies: Offer themselves or die.
Meaning, the women that possessed traits that would lead them to give themselves away to their own family's executioners- were the only ones that had a chance to procreate.

This is why men are sexually attracted to these same traits- mainly subservience and meekness. If the women fought and most assuredly would die, they'd serve no evolutionary benefit, being of little to no procreational/preservational use to the defenders as well as the invaders. Whereas submitting was always a direct procreational benefit to the invaders.

And historically, if only men could successfully fend off an attack, even risking death, his offspring would have a higher chance of survival, as well as the woman, in turn making masculine traits like valor and courage sexually desirable to women, as well as preservationally desirable to both women and his offspring.

In today's society, men and women look down on other men that display subservient traits because it serves no evolutionary benefit to either.
These selected-for traits that can also be looked at as treasonous and dishonorable as well as open and nurturing- tho desirable in an evolutionary sense, are not desirable when influencing national policy, and only opens us up to the other foreign invaders that will happily fulfill those "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies".

Full circle.

Traditional gender roles are the cause of, and result of themselves. By societies taking these exact same traits that could easily destroy a society and harnessing them as the positive traits that they actually are.

It's up to men to protect our women from selling us, and themselves out.

I will not be forced to be submissive or a 2nd class citizen to you or any man.

 

[joluoto]

Where do these monsters come form? I thought Neanderthals had gone extinct.

Don't insult Neanderthals.

 

[bluesmoke]

Throughout human history, women and only women were ever given a choice by the invading armies: Offer themselves or die.
Meaning, the women that possessed traits that would lead them to give themselves away to their own family's executioners- were the only ones that had a chance to procreate.

This is why men are sexually attracted to these same traits- mainly subservience and meekness. If the women fought and most assuredly would die, they'd serve no evolutionary benefit, being of little to no procreational/preservational use to the defenders as well as the invaders. Whereas submitting was always a direct procreational benefit to the invaders.

And historically, if only men could successfully fend off an attack, even risking death, his offspring would have a higher chance of survival, as well as the woman, in turn making masculine traits like valor and courage sexually desirable to women, as well as preservationally desirable to both women and his offspring.

In today's society, men and women look down on other men that display subservient traits because it serves no evolutionary benefit to either.
These selected-for traits that can also be looked at as treasonous and dishonorable as well as open and nurturing- tho desirable in an evolutionary sense, are not desirable when influencing national policy, and only opens us up to the other foreign invaders that will happily fulfill those "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies".

Full circle.

Traditional gender roles are the cause of, and result of themselves. By societies taking these exact same traits that could easily destroy a society and harnessing them as the positive traits that they actually are.

It's up to men to protect our women from selling us, and themselves out.

' "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies" '.

Did you post the above as being a claim of yours or something you agree with? Any source link? Do you have a figure/source for how many men have rape fantasies (as assailant)?

 

[Helix]

Where do these monsters come form? I thought Neanderthals had gone extinct.

actually, Neanderthals were quite a bit more intelligent than they are given credit for. the same cannot be said for nazis.

 

[Cameron]

Throughout human history, women and only women were ever given a choice by the invading armies: Offer themselves or die.
Meaning, the women that possessed traits that would lead them to give themselves away to their own family's executioners- were the only ones that had a chance to procreate.

This is why men are sexually attracted to these same traits- mainly subservience and meekness. If the women fought and most assuredly would die, they'd serve no evolutionary benefit, being of little to no procreational/preservational use to the defenders as well as the invaders. Whereas submitting was always a direct procreational benefit to the invaders.

And historically, if only men could successfully fend off an attack, even risking death, his offspring would have a higher chance of survival, as well as the woman, in turn making masculine traits like valor and courage sexually desirable to women, as well as preservationally desirable to both women and his offspring.

In today's society, men and women look down on other men that display subservient traits because it serves no evolutionary benefit to either.
These selected-for traits that can also be looked at as treasonous and dishonorable as well as open and nurturing- tho desirable in an evolutionary sense, are not desirable when influencing national policy, and only opens us up to the other foreign invaders that will happily fulfill those "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies".

Full circle.

Traditional gender roles are the cause of, and result of themselves. By societies taking these exact same traits that could easily destroy a society and harnessing them as the positive traits that they actually are.

It's up to men to protect our women from selling us, and themselves out.

The whole point of the Constitution and democracy is to civilize us from the middle ages when the strong ruled and everybody else was enslaved or slaughtered. Rule by brains is better for society than rule by brawn, as shown by the advancements that have been made during democratic periods (Roman and modern) versus the lack of advancement made in the tens of thousands of years in which people behaved like animals (i.e., no advancement). I'm not sure why I have to explain this to you.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Throughout human history, women and only women were ever given a choice by the invading armies: Offer themselves or die.
Meaning, the women that possessed traits that would lead them to give themselves away to their own family's executioners- were the only ones that had a chance to procreate.

This is why men are sexually attracted to these same traits- mainly subservience and meekness. If the women fought and most assuredly would die, they'd serve no evolutionary benefit, being of little to no procreational/preservational use to the defenders as well as the invaders. Whereas submitting was always a direct procreational benefit to the invaders.

And historically, if only men could successfully fend off an attack, even risking death, his offspring would have a higher chance of survival, as well as the woman, in turn making masculine traits like valor and courage sexually desirable to women, as well as preservationally desirable to both women and his offspring.

In today's society, men and women look down on other men that display subservient traits because it serves no evolutionary benefit to either.
These selected-for traits that can also be looked at as treasonous and dishonorable as well as open and nurturing- tho desirable in an evolutionary sense, are not desirable when influencing national policy, and only opens us up to the other foreign invaders that will happily fulfill those "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies".

Full circle.

Traditional gender roles are the cause of, and result of themselves. By societies taking these exact same traits that could easily destroy a society and harnessing them as the positive traits that they actually are.

It's up to men to protect our women from selling us, and themselves out.

Delusional misogynistic tripe.

 

[Craig234]

The whole point of the Constitution and democracy is to civilize us from the middle ages when the strong ruled and everybody else was enslaved or slaughtered.

Really, this is a slow evolution that began before the Middle Ages. Even in the Middle Ages, there were pressures to make the English king have to follow laws, which the first king in the modern line who overthrew the previous king in 1066 pledged to do, as each monarch has since.

The US has had a long history of gradually moving toward treating people more equally as people in most ways; our biggest failure in that is allowing our country to be dominated by wealthy interests, who have been gutting the people's power to restrain them and just got essentially unlimited power to gut the people's rights in the last week.

In the first decades, property requirements to vote were reduced. In less than a century, the 14th amendment had passed making races equal. By 1920, women got an equal right to vote. In the 1960s, blacks had remaining legal discrimination removed. More recently, the handicapped received more rights. In the last 20 years gays could not be jailed, and in the last 10 they could marry equally.

This parallels other societies, who have nearly all either eliminated monarchy - as France - or made it powerless - as England.

Unfortunately, this happy story toward democracy is, as I said, threatened as billions of dollars are poured into seizing control of the political systems, warping voters' views, turning democracy against the people, something that succeeded with Bush and trump especially, and has thwarted 'the people', who would be represented by progressives like Bernie, from having power so far. Democracy in under increasing threat.

 

[aociswundumho]

Sorry man, but no amount of esoteric Darwinian explanation for why women shouldn't be able to vote is going to convince these people that democracy is cringe and lame.

If only it were just cringe and lame. Democracy is barbaric and authoritarian and just downright stupid. It's the logic of five men and one woman taking a vote on whether to gang rape the woman. People who idolize democracy are without a doubt the biggest idiots on the planet. The best argument for democracy is "Oh, but it's better than a dictatorship". Yea, and vomit tastes better than diarrhea.

OP is correct but he doesn't go far enough. Women should not be allowed to vote, and neither should men.

 

[Yakshi]

I'm the only one who thinks that the OP is kidding?

How can this

"Throughout human history, women and only women were ever given a choice by the invading armies: Offer themselves or die"

not be tongue in cheek?

It might not fit your taste in humor, because it can't get any drier, but the guy's just playing around.

 

[dex4974]

I will not be forced to be submissive or a 2nd class citizen to you or any man.

You would if the law said so and people with guns were willing to kill you over it.

 

[Troyminator]

' "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies" '.

Did you post the above as being a claim of yours or something you agree with? Any source link? Do you have a figure/source for how many men have rape fantasies (as assailant)?

Like 53.3815% of all stats on the Internet, it was made up.

 

[Jay59]

Where do these monsters come form? I thought Neanderthals had gone extinct.

Nah. They went to California.

Like 53.3815% of all stats on the Internet, it was made up.

That's one I believe, witness the sales of 50 Shades of Grey.

 

[Lisa]

You would if the law said so and people with guns were willing to kill you over it.

I spent time in the USMC. If you point a gun at me your breathing privileges would be revoked.

If only it were just cringe and lame. Democracy is barbaric and authoritarian and just downright stupid. It's the logic of five men and one woman taking a vote on whether to gang rape the woman. People who idolize democracy are without a doubt the biggest idiots on the planet. The best argument for democracy is "Oh, but it's better than a dictatorship". Yea, and vomit tastes better than diarrhea.

OP is correct but he doesn't go far enough. Women should not be allowed to vote, and neither should men.

You're a perfect little fascist arent you? Do you have a preferred flavor of boot polish? You must hate the idea that we live in a representative republic with equal rights for all. You should get in a time machine and go back to the 10th cenbtury, before the Magna Carta, when you kissed the ring on a king or a pope.

 

[ultmd]

Throughout human history, women and only women were ever given a choice by the invading armies: Offer themselves or die.
Meaning, the women that possessed traits that would lead them to give themselves away to their own family's executioners- were the only ones that had a chance to procreate.

This is why men are sexually attracted to these same traits- mainly subservience and meekness. If the women fought and most assuredly would die, they'd serve no evolutionary benefit, being of little to no procreational/preservational use to the defenders as well as the invaders. Whereas submitting was always a direct procreational benefit to the invaders.

And historically, if only men could successfully fend off an attack, even risking death, his offspring would have a higher chance of survival, as well as the woman, in turn making masculine traits like valor and courage sexually desirable to women, as well as preservationally desirable to both women and his offspring.

In today's society, men and women look down on other men that display subservient traits because it serves no evolutionary benefit to either.
These selected-for traits that can also be looked at as treasonous and dishonorable as well as open and nurturing- tho desirable in an evolutionary sense, are not desirable when influencing national policy, and only opens us up to the other foreign invaders that will happily fulfill those "31-57% of women that've had rape fantasies".

Full circle.

Traditional gender roles are the cause of, and result of themselves. By societies taking these exact same traits that could easily destroy a society and harnessing them as the positive traits that they actually are.

It's up to men to protect our women from selling us, and themselves out.

Oh, great...another lonely, pathetic, pseudo-intellectual incel manifesto.

You people need to get laid. It would change your outlook on life (and women).

Dumbest OP in recent memory.

Lemme guess....you almost finished high school...you don't have a real job, and can't seem to hold onto one for very long...you don't have a girlfriend....people always made you feel like an outsider....and you think women and minorities are inferior to YOU (of all people).

Amirite?

 

[hwtbd1984]

Oh, great...another lonely, pathetic, pseudo-intellectual incel manifesto.

You people need to get laid. It would change your outlook on life (and women).

Dumbest OP in recent memory.

Lemme guess....you almost finished high school...you don't have a real job, and can't seem to hold onto one for very long...you don't have a girlfriend....people always made you feel like an outsider....and you think women and minorities are inferior to YOU (of all people).

Amirite?

this is literally the most low iq forum i've ever come across. how many replies? yet still not a single argument. only generic fallacies because nobody even attempted to comprehend what i actually wrote, instead, skimmed through and found some buzzwords that helped you construct a narrative of what you think this post saying.
read it again, slowly......
this will help: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument