Why don't you want women to have jobs or vote? Seriously, list all the drawbacks for me right now, please

It takes away the "household vote".
Women werent allowed to vote therefore emphasizing the whole family to talk about an election or whatever. When you give everyone the right to vote instead of just land owners all it does is help splinter families and gives them a reason to be stubborn and not talk about it with their family since they don't have to agree with anyone to have their voices heard. It's not perfect, but sure as hell a lot better than what we have now

Why do you larp as a women lol

half workforce means double occupancies and double wages. that's why i would wish for women to not work, can you you list the jobs a woman can do better than a man right now, please.

Attached: lolwhat.jpg (460x692, 86K)

I see your point with the vote part. However, there are certainly a good number of women who would make terrible parents due to their innate mentality and thus would be better off working to at least contribute something.

right now, please.

Maybe taking care of children in an asylum or hospital.

why is it always mutts defending roasties and niggers?

Attached: 1526829447302.jpg (925x588, 218K)

Because they're stupid, easily-manipulated sheep and they need to be at home cooking, cleaning and raising happy, healthy, wholesome children like they did when this country was at its best.

Attached: p-Bewitched-Elizabeth-Montgomery.jpg (300x300, 27K)

they aren't better at doing it, they are the jobs left over that do not require competition. no need for productivity as the patient is either doomed to be useless for eternity or will heal on their own part.

I'm not saying companies should strive to hire women. I'm just saying we shouldn't discount the possibility that there are indeed competent ones out there and not just up and say they can't hold jobs.

Yeah it’s not a hard and fast rule. There are certainly exceptions: some type-A “masculine” women who are totally suited to work and likely enjoy it. But the current social expectation that women work, and that women are fundamentally “workers” and not fundamentally “mothers”, is totally deleterious. Women are inherently passive and mothers, men are inherently active and protectors/providers. It’s one of those things that has been so obvious throughout prehistory and history that no one even bothered to suggest otherwise. It wasn’t until the chaos of modernity that things got so messy we lost sight of some of this self-evident truths.

> give me a crash course on subject matter that takes hundreds of pages to lay out in great detail
Oh god, can't you just not post, read redpills, browse literature threads and lurk for 2 years? that too much to ask?
Tell you what, I'm going to summarize one bit of it. It's not the entirety of it, but once you've read through the psychology behind it, you will begin to get it. Let's approach this from an evolutionary psychological perspective. Within primitive, tribal societies, and even after the neolithic, society still had a very similar structure to that, what decisions women made never really mattered. If your tribe makes a right decision, they rek another tribe, then yay, your men get to rape the women of another tribe and come home with some loot from killing the men of the other tribe. If your tribe makes a very bad decision, get rekt themselves, all your men get killed, their men get to rape you, stay with you/capture you and you still get to enjoy all the loot that came from the bloodshed, regardless of who won. And this dynamic extends from tribal warfare to greater warfare, to competition between businesses even.

(1/3)

Attached: 1494495688320.jpg (960x842, 157K)

If you're a female board member in a company, why should you care enough to make good decisions? There's lots of male colleagues to carry your weight with better decisionmaking and hard work than you, and even if all that isn't enough, even if you somehow manage to completely and utterly run the company that pays you a 6 digit monthly sum for making the right decisions, into the ground with a non-stop slew of catastrophic decisions, you can expect a big bonus for getting fired due to contractual obligations, your male peers will shelter you from too harsh consequences and your lawyer will broker a good deal for you. And once you raked in all the extra cash for crashing and burning the company you worked for, you can just sign onto the competitor who will happily take a woman with the degrees you hold, because there's so few of them and they need every qualified woman they can get to not drop below the quota and get sued by a women's rights watchdog.

Because there was never a biological need for women to have the predisposition to any kind of investment in the 'team' they work within to succeed, since they can just switch sides if they fuck everything up, selection never improved them in this area and they never developed the capacity to care either way whether whatever they work within, whether it's a company, a tribe, a nation, a political party - whatever they're a part of, they have no reason to care whether it succeeds or it is obliterated.

Attached: 4b8d9bc15fb2939c721d6ade9399a858c98db084e037158690095fad051fd4ec.gif (1587x1357, 318K)

They vote with their feels, not their brain.

Every country has been getting more and more left wing ever since women have gained the right to vote there.

If you're a woman (at least instinctively that is what you think if you are one), you can always switch sides if things go haywire. And with any investment in success gone, suddenly, other factors play a larger role in their decisionmaking. Like financial incentives (aka bribes, cronyism or other forms of corruption), or social pressure (enacted by foreign- and corporate-owned news media and foreign- and corporate-owned entertainment industry). So to a woman, those near her succeeding doesn't matter, what matters is short-term gratification, which as of right now (((the enemy))) has the most to offer.

To make it worse, their mind is hardwired to not just engage in a still, rigid opportunism as you would expect it, but instead they are quick to jump along with whoever they perceive as having the upper hand. Like piranhas, they will gleefully stomp down on whoever they currently perceive to be weaker, and this perception is, as mentioned above, shaped through news media and entertainment, very strictly filtered corporate lenses. Women despise men that don't take charge over them, and thus every woman in a high position is bitter and angry with no idea why.

TL;DR: Women are the ultimate corporate stooges and if you want any freedom, self-determination long-term success or long-term survival you will want to keep them from any position of authority you can.

Attached: 1514204030277.jpg (867x1000, 375K)

>Why don't you want women to have jobs or vote?

Because Jow Forums is siwilhanist.

Women's only job is to raise a family with a man and make him happy.

Attached: 1509500595571.jpg (1000x1309, 246K)

your pic is wrong
batman is the millionaire superman is just a low level newspaper reporter

>Why don't you want women to vote

Because of this:
youtube.com/watch?v=2YpqM9ELoNE

That's women in a nutshell. If you multiply that behavior, you get women's influence on society.

Attached: dead.jpg (1370x800, 503K)

>superman

Attached: gender.jpg (849x900, 317K)

Yes ok women are superior now brap on my face

>they are quick to jump along with whoever they perceive as having the upper hand

Attached: switchers.jpg (621x648, 86K)

>Women are smarter, more socially aware, more empathetic, and more logical than men

Attached: ash.jpg (597x606, 106K)

pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1478447101

One of my favourites

Yes that pretty much summarizes what I was trying to get across in 2 sentences. Perhaps brevity is the soul of wit after all.

The point of the cartoon isn't accuracy in regards to the DC canon, it's just supposed to get 2 points across
> Women always look to trade up, the only scenario in which they don't, is when they can't.
> Women also have neither any self-awareness, nor the faintest grasp of how desirable they are and suffer from chronic, latent self-overestimation. Which is why even being good-looking and rich won't stop your girlfriend from looking for opportunities to trade up, she just believes she's that fucking good-looking and in other ways attractive.

>women start working
>theres now 2x the labour
>now everyone is getting paid half what they were before
amazin

>Perhaps brevity is the soul of wit after all.

Brevity is the soul of propaganda.

#Rules 3 and 4
3c) Pictures can't be outargued. Confronting anti-arguers in a later discussion with the same picture again hurts them more than the first time. Any argument they used to anti-argue the picture turns then into wasted energy and a failure.
4a) Write short sentences. The longer a sentence the less memetic and propagandistic it is.
4b) Use short texts. The longer a text, the higher the likelihood that a potential multiplier disagrees with it and refuses to share it.

Attached: considerthefollowing.jpg (400x421, 42K)

>Why don't you want women to have jobs
Destruction of family units and birthrates.
>or vote?
Destruction of nations by them voting SJW liberals to power.

Attached: thebest.jpg (601x918, 255K)

you misunderstand. women have HUGE investment in the team they work within. They don't have loyalty because loyalty doesn't pay the bills, and women's genetic success depends heavily on sustainability. if a team can't survive, neither can she. nature has a very high failure rate. it's advantageous for women to have weak loyalty, because they're literally showing extreme preference for things that WORK. in the real, physical world. they obey the Truth better than men do, ironically enough.

Men's success has greater variety. they can "succeed" just fine, because society will pick up the slack of an absent father. Power seekers LOVE opportunities to play "father", after all. This element of male reproduction means that success can be achieved through several different means. Most of which are influenced by the "earthly father" aka the government/society, since they're the ones that take care of the "weakest", they kinda put an arbitrary evolutionary cutoff at some point.

So men have to get past this cut off point. Usually that means figuring out how to work within your society well enough to succeed in procreation. This means a certain set of morals, choices, and beliefs, usually dictated by society to some degree. Which means ingroup preference and loyalty being a byproduct. a man that successfully fathers a kid will likely have STAYED with the mother and provided assistance. that alone means loyalty from men improves success rate.

men value loyalty because it's naturally a desirable quality to society that is distinctly male. men say women are not loyal. Loyal to what God, I wonder?

that's one of the big contradictions of gender, tho. we mirror each other extremely well, but men always seem to see the worst of themselves in women, and believe it is true of females. they forget how much of their lives are dictated by the govt, then wonder why women are lefties. it's kinda cute if i think about it.

>women have HUGE investment in the team they work within. They don't have loyalty

Attached: teamwork.jpg (900x1493, 426K)

>Women are smarter, more socially aware, more empathetic, and more logical than men
but
>patriarchy exists
>rape culture exists
>women need us to step aside
Explain

Lower wages for working fathers
They are lazy
The are inferior in all jobs
Cause workplace problems far in excess of their utility.
Declining white birth rates
Metoo.

>The point of the cartoon isn't accuracy i
It's to strawman is insecure point and the only way liberals can explain things is through their fantasy medias.

Prostitute

You have it exactly the wrong way round.
> if a team can't survive, neither can she
Wrong, if her team doesn't survive, she just switches teams and does perfectly fine.
> loyalty doesn't pay the bills
If you have a functional society and a husband who is employed and happy, his paycheck pays the bills. So yes, loyalty does pay the bills
> they show preference for things that WORK
They don't, they show preference for things that work FOR THEM and only in the short term. Even their own children are excluded from FOR THEM, so if you observe things in a longer span than one generation, everything they do does exactly not work. We have statistic over study over case study over research paper proving over and over that the worst thing you can do to your child if you're a mother, is to raise them as a single mother, yet the majority of single mothers don't come from men running away like in whatever netflix drama you get this idea from, but from women, out of their own free will, deciding to file for divorce to raise them as a single mother and keep their eyes out for someone better while living off alimony and stwong womyn bux you get in every European country. Does that sound like they seek out approaches that are effective (in this case to raise their children well), or does that sound like they just picked whatever decision 'felt good' for them and only them at the moment?

> Most of which are influenced by the "earthly father" aka the government/society, since they're the ones that take care of the "weakest", they kinda put an arbitrary evolutionary cutoff at some point.
This is the part that makes me think you're ripping all this drivel off some socialist textbook. Because you seem to have this idea stuck in your head, where the goods the 'earthly father' provides the 'weakest' for with (weakest meaning women because who else of course) don't just shoot out of a magic spring. The single men who work hard and have to watch women being single because papa taxpayerfund pays for everything. You think they're just too bad at providing? Who do you think is providing these goods? Because the state sure is not, the state only redistributes them. It's those same single men. The current administrative and welfare system is essentially a shadow-marriage where all men are married to all women and have the same obligations as in a real marriage (providing goods and protecting from threats, they work hard, get scraps for wages, pay half of those scraps in taxes and that half is redistributed to women through social programs and alimony, that's how the provision works, part of that redistributed money goes into funding the national army, that's how protection is handled), but the same women receiving all these benefits, do so with none of the obligations (raising children, providing their husband with comfort, making themselves useful in whatever ways they can like housework).
A little addendum, the choice of words in 'earthly father' reeks of social alchemy, which is why I suspect you get this nonsense from some esoteric women's spirituality book.