Liberal Women are Unhappy

[Rightguide]

Well then, I admit I didn't read every post inhere. Simply because I stopped reading advert a while. All these 'oh, she's liberal! Jesus isn't liberal! Liberal is the tombstone of western society! Liberal women are sad and don't like anal!'
You stupid fucking, sorry, wanking bunch of losers. You have no facken clue what you are talking about, mouth breathers! Too stupid to live, too ...
Sorry, I might gotten a tad overboard. Let's start again.
Let's have a brief chinwag about the word 'liberal', especially from where I'm standing.
It's a tricky old word, "liberal." At its heart, it generally means being open to new ideas, willing to change, and believing in individual freedoms and rights. Think of it as the opposite of being a grumpy stick-in-the-mud who insists on doing things exactly the way dear old great-granny did, bless her heart.
Now, for us ladies, when we talk about being liberal, it often boils down to something rather lovely and simple: having options and being treated like a fully-fledged, capable human being.
A liberal outlook for a woman usually includes the slightly radical notion that we should be allowed to:
Choose our own path—be it career, family, or whether we wear trousers or a skirt (frankly, why is that even a debate?).
Have control over our own bodies and health decisions (that's the big one, isn't it?).
Receive equal pay for an equal day's work (shocking, I know!).
Be safe from archaic double standards or the chaps explaining things to us that we already know—the dreaded mansplaining (a truly liberal man generally understands when to simply listen and nod. Liberal read: gentle here).
In essence, a liberal society, for a woman, is one where we're not just tolerated, but genuinely valued as equal partners in the grand scheme of things. It's about taking that slightly restrictive historical corset off, having a good stretch, and saying, "Yes, I think I'll have a go at that CEO job, thank you very much, and I'll still be home in time for tea if I feel like it!"
So, when you hear a woman call herself liberal, think of it as a signal that she's a firm believer in fairness and the right to live life on her own terms, without needing a gentleman's permission slip. And honestly, lads, it makes us far more cheerful company!

Cry harder.

 

[LeahWill]

Notice she doesn’t simply disagree, she fuses her political stance (“I hate Republicans, MAGA Republicans”) with her sense of moral purity. This isn’t politics for her; it’s identity protection. She likes to use ideology to shield herself from introspection. It’s safer to chant slogans than face why she's angry. The other point I'd make is she’s what experts would call an “aggressive virtue signaler.” She relies on performative aggression to affirm her membership in an online tribe of similar nuts. Her public hostility isn’t about convincing anyone; it’s about proving loyalty to her group by attacking outsiders with her theatrical contempt. Here's the real bottom line: She doesn’t hate men or Republicans; she hates the reflection of her own impotence that she sees in them.

Do you have to explain every post to the 'fake lawyer'?
A little demeaning to do it so publicly to be honest.

 

[stxjimmy]

That’s where you’re mistaken. I’m not out to sculpt society or convert anyone; I’m simply expressing my own thoughts. I’m not running for office, and I have no campaign to sell. I’m merely dissecting your perception of reality and your political logic, before an audience small enough to be harmless, yet large enough to expose your contradictions.

Oh good there’ll be no more propaganda posted from lying websites.

 

[Rightguide]

So you're a doctor now.


Fun!

No, I hold a professorship in Triggernometry and Emotional Engineering, and serve as Adjunct in Advanced Outrage Studies. My research specializes in online fragility ecosystems. Would you like to make an appointment?

 

[ll74]

No, I hold a professorship in Triggernometry and Emotional Engineering, and serve as Adjunct in Advanced Outrage Studies. My research specializes in online fragility ecosystems. Would you like to make an appointment?

Oh, look......someone's trying to be funny.

 

[AlexBailey]

That’s where you’re mistaken. I’m not out to sculpt society or convert anyone; I’m simply expressing my own thoughts. I’m not running for office, and I have no campaign to sell.

I'm too busy building civilization in three different states. As a man I have decades of child-producing ability left in life. From a purely biological perspective, female fertility declines sharply after 30 and drops off a cliff after 35. Fewer marriages and later pregnancies mean fewer births, and those births often come with higher risks and lower odds of replacement-level fertility.

From a civilizational perspective, the problem compounds. Every generation that under-reproduces creates a smaller base for the next one. Fewer young people means fewer workers, inventors, soldiers, taxpayers, and parents to sustain the cultural, economic, and political structures of a nation.

There are deeper cultural consequences, by reorienting womanhood around careerism instead of family formation, societies trade legacy for lifestyle. Civilizations don’t collapse because of a lack of comfort, they collapse because they run out of children willing to inherit what was built.

​

Again,

How’s life in Moscow?

 

[Rightguide]

Oh good there’ll be no more propaganda posted from lying websites.

Here's some wholesome content you might enjoy:

 

[Rightguide]

Again,

How’s life in Moscow?

I already answered that dumb assertion.

 

[LeahWill]

Here's some wholesome content you might enjoy:

Can you train alligators...?

 

[AlexBailey]

I already answered that dumb assertion.

The assertion that you’re trying to craft society to fit your myopic agenda is spot on - verified easily by your own posts.

Moscow Idaho is an example of Christian Nationalism over taking civil secular society. Whether you’re part of their movement or not, you’re doing the same thing by trying to legislate your version of morality. You’re trying to combine church and state while falsely claiming it’s patriotism.

 

[Rightguide]

Could it be, perhaps, that women, treated badly by conservative "manly men," decided that conservatism just wasn't for them?

The real source of their anger isn’t patriarchy, it’s the mirror. They’ve hit the wall, and the market has informed them, rather brutally, that their appeal to men of means who actually want a family has expired.

 

[Rightguide]

The assertion that you’re trying to craft society to fit your myopic agenda is spot on - verified easily by your own posts.

Moscow Idaho is an example of Christian Nationalism over taking civil secular society. Whether you’re part of their movement or not, you’re doing the same thing by trying to legislate your version of morality. You’re trying to combine church and state while falsely claiming it’s patriotism.

I can count on one hand how many times I've been to church in the last three decades. All were funerals and marriages. So you can relieve yourself of that Christian Nationalism BS.

 

[ll74]

The part you're missing, Reichy, is that your inability to find happy women is not a reflection of the women you're encountering, but instead is a reflection on the type of man you are.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Cry harder.

Well, as you yourself write, there is a difference between projection and a clinical diagnosis.
Projection is when you project your distorted world view onto everything, i.e. try to adapt reality to your own ideas and perceptions.
A clinical diagnosis is when you are told that you are a dysfunctional sociopath, without friends, without people who are close to you or who would even love you. You are simply incapable of contributing anything to society.
And this leads to another, non-clinical diagnosis: you are completely worthless. Nobody needs you. Nobody likes you. Nobody will miss you.
Of course, that could be changed. You could try to understand what humanity is all about. You could try to interact with other people (sitting alone in front of the screen and pretending to be close to someone on YouPorn until you drip into your handkerchief is not interaction). You could leave your flat, look for real friends, maybe join a sports club and show people that you can be a nice guy. And maybe, just maybe, you'll even find a woman who will deflower you.
But honestly, between you and me? I don't think so. You tell yourself that you're happy being an arsehole, but that's not true.
You'll end up dying alone and lonely. Two to three weeks after your death, the locksmith will open your flat because neighbours will have complained about the stench. And no one will know who you really were.

 

[AlexBailey]

I can count on one hand how many times I've been to church in the last three decades. All were funerals and marriages. So you can relieve yourself of that Christian Nationalism BS.

When you’re saying women need to subjugate to men you’re walking and talking like that duck.

 

[LeahWill]

I can count on one hand how many times I've been to church in the last three decades. All were funerals and marriages.

Does it work out cheaper if you hold them at the same time?

 

[lifeis2short2b]

Those men are into their money. The pursuit of wealth always comes at a cost.

Exactly ! They only care about making money. They not only don't care about women. They don't care about the country either. When the shit hits the fan they will be the first to move to there other residences any where in the world.

 

[Baztrachian]

It's a tricky old word, "liberal." At its heart, it generally means being open to new ideas, willing to change, and believing in individual freedoms and rights.

What you just described is typically called a classical liberal. That describes me perfectly.

I believe your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. Like if you want to be a socialist then I'm good with that so long as I don't have to be one, too.

A liberal outlook for a woman usually includes the slightly radical notion that we should be allowed to:
Choose our own path—be it career, family, or whether we wear trousers or a skirt (frankly, why is that even a debate?).

I'm fine with women or anyone else being afforded the opportunity to pursue your own path. My issue is when a woman or anyone else gets a job or whatever at a more qualified person's expense. I support the freedom to compete. I oppose quotas and DEI and any other form of institutionalized discrimination.

Have control over our own bodies and health decisions (that's the big one, isn't it?).

Cool. Likewise you support the right of women to refuse experimental drugs like mRNA?

Receive equal pay for an equal day's work (shocking, I know!).

As long as you do the same work and accept the same conditions then fine. But if you want to be out half the year on FMLA then don't expect the same pay as someone else who worked all year.

Be safe from archaic double standards or the chaps explaining things to us that we already know—the dreaded mansplaining (a truly liberal man generally understands when to simply listen and nod. Liberal read: gentle here).

Nope. Your rights end where someone else's begin. If someone wants to 'mansplain' then they can do that. You have the right not to listen but you do not have the right to silence them.

In essence, a liberal society, for a woman, is one where we're not just tolerated, but genuinely valued as equal partners in the grand scheme of things. It's about taking that slightly restrictive historical corset off, having a good stretch, and saying, "Yes, I think I'll have a go at that CEO job, thank you very much, and I'll still be home in time for tea if I feel like it!"

Nope. Now you're going past the realm of classical liberalism when you are insisting not just on opportunities but on outcomes. You have no right to expect me to value you. Whether or not I value you or anyone else is one of my fundamental liberties. Whether or not I value someone is based upon the value they demonstrate to me.

Like say you get that CEO job and you're my CEO. If the place runs well, makes a decent profit, and you're decent and fair as CEO then I will value you as an effective CEO while not giving a particular shit that you happen to be a woman. But don't expect me to cut you slack just because you're a woman and you expect me to value you? Yeaaaaah, no.

Why? Because I don't have to and you can't make me.

So, when you hear a woman call herself liberal, think of it as a signal that she's a firm believer in fairness and the right to live life on her own terms, without needing a gentleman's permission slip. And honestly, lads, it makes us far more cheerful company!

The difficulty here is that these days when a woman announces that she's a liberal she's generally announcing herself to be a miserable and insufferable harpy who will harangue and harass everyone who doesn't bow down before her greatness, be it real or imagined.

She's announcing her willingness to be offended at fucking everything.

A stereotype immediately forms in people's minds of an unpleasant woman with short hair, bitch glasses, piercings, tats, and all the personality of a rabid Yorkshire terrier.



Now, of course, we're not talking about you.

Which is why I would recommend distinguishing yourself from the above pictured looney-toons by calling yourself a classical liberal and then demonstrating or exemplifying the values and characteristics of a classical liberal.

 

[Baztrachian]

Exactly ! They only care about making money. They not only don't care about women. They don't care about the country either. When the shit hits the fan they will be the first to move to there other residences any where in the world.

It's a choice and thank God they have that choice. But the women who hook themselves to such men should accept and understand that they're hitching up to a guy who will be at work when the markets open in London if that's what he has to do.

The guy might be a great provider but shit companionship.

Consequently I have little sympathy for some woman who gets involved with Elon Musk knowing his track record yet expecting him to be different. For her.

Memo girls: Whoever he is he ain't going to change just for you.

 

[ll74]

Lol

 

[AlexBailey]

What you just described is typically called a classical liberal. That describes me perfectly.

I believe your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. Like if you want to be a socialist then I'm good with that so long as I don't have to be one, too.



I'm fine with women or anyone else being afforded the opportunity to pursue your own path. My issue is when a woman or anyone else gets a job or whatever at a more qualified person's expense. I support the freedom to compete. I oppose quotas and DEI and any other form of institutionalized discrimination.



Cool. Likewise you support the right of women to refuse experimental drugs like mRNA?



As long as you do the same work and accept the same conditions then fine. But if you want to be out half the year on FMLA then don't expect the same pay as someone else who worked all year.



Nope. Your rights end where someone else's begin. If someone wants to 'mansplain' then they can do that. You have the right not to listen but you do not have the right to silence them.



Nope. Now you're going past the realm of classical liberalism when you are insisting not just on opportunities but on outcomes. You have no right to expect me to value you. Whether or not I value you or anyone else is one of my fundamental liberties. Whether or not I value someone is based upon the value they demonstrate to me.

Like say you get that CEO job and you're my CEO. If the place runs well, makes a decent profit, and you're decent and fair as CEO then I will value you as an effective CEO while not giving a particular shit that you happen to be a woman. But don't expect me to cut you slack just because you're a woman and you expect me to value you? Yeaaaaah, no.

Why? Because I don't have to and you can't make me.



The difficulty here is that these days when a woman announces that she's a liberal she's generally announcing herself to be a miserable and insufferable harpy who will harangue and harass everyone who doesn't bow down before her greatness, be it real or imagined.

She's announcing her willingness to be offended at fucking everything.

A stereotype immediately forms in people's minds of an unpleasant woman with short hair, bitch glasses, piercings, tats, and all the personality of a rabid Yorkshire terrier.

View attachment 2575452 View attachment 2575453 View attachment 2575454

Now, of course, we're not talking about you.

Which is why I would recommend distinguishing yourself from the above pictured looney-toons by calling yourself a classical liberal and then demonstrating or exemplifying the values and characteristics of a classical liberal.

Yeah, no.

You almost sound rational when you use those libertarian talking points. Almost.

The problem with your argument is facts. You pick and choose facts and deny science at your convenience.

When a libertarian lives up stream they claim tyranny when people living down stream want to regulate what can be dumped in the river.

You set your house upwind and upstream from your pig ranch and want to dump the pig shit in everyone else’s water supply, then try to spin it as natural.

Does this make sense or are you allergic to analogy?

 

[Meekly_Anna]

What you just described is typically called a classical liberal. That describes me perfectly.

I believe your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. Like if you want to be a socialist then I'm good with that so long as I don't have to be one, too.



I'm fine with women or anyone else being afforded the opportunity to pursue your own path. My issue is when a woman or anyone else gets a job or whatever at a more qualified person's expense. I support the freedom to compete. I oppose quotas and DEI and any other form of institutionalized discrimination.



Cool. Likewise you support the right of women to refuse experimental drugs like mRNA?



As long as you do the same work and accept the same conditions then fine. But if you want to be out half the year on FMLA then don't expect the same pay as someone else who worked all year.



Nope. Your rights end where someone else's begin. If someone wants to 'mansplain' then they can do that. You have the right not to listen but you do not have the right to silence them.



Nope. Now you're going past the realm of classical liberalism when you are insisting not just on opportunities but on outcomes. You have no right to expect me to value you. Whether or not I value you or anyone else is one of my fundamental liberties. Whether or not I value someone is based upon the value they demonstrate to me.

Like say you get that CEO job and you're my CEO. If the place runs well, makes a decent profit, and you're decent and fair as CEO then I will value you as an effective CEO while not giving a particular shit that you happen to be a woman. But don't expect me to cut you slack just because you're a woman and you expect me to value you? Yeaaaaah, no.

Why? Because I don't have to and you can't make me.



The difficulty here is that these days when a woman announces that she's a liberal she's generally announcing herself to be a miserable and insufferable harpy who will harangue and harass everyone who doesn't bow down before her greatness, be it real or imagined.

She's announcing her willingness to be offended at fucking everything.

A stereotype immediately forms in people's minds of an unpleasant woman with short hair, bitch glasses, piercings, tats, and all the personality of a rabid Yorkshire terrier.

View attachment 2575452 View attachment 2575453 View attachment 2575454

Now, of course, we're not talking about you.

Which is why I would recommend distinguishing yourself from the above pictured looney-toons by calling yourself a classical liberal and then demonstrating or exemplifying the values and characteristics of a classical liberal.

You are deflecting and projecting.
You explain to me what I've written and project your Weltanschauung into it.
You are mixing in some stuff to deflect from the subject. By the way: why are you allowed to talk whatever fancies you and these women are not? Double standards at its best.
And then these "oh, you are a real liberal? I'm talking about the game liberals only".
Sorry, what?
And then mansplaining. I don't hate it. It's rather funny most of the time. Picture a little engineer (that's me) wearing a hard hat and high visibility dungarees and tee in a huge industrial installation doing maintenance at a fucking big valve.
Enter the crown of creation.
‘Hey, little lady, what are you doing here?’
‘Hank, you fool, she's a girl and not a lady.’
Anna: ‘I'm repairing this valve.’
‘No way, you can't even lift the lid.’
Anna: ‘The cover is made of chrome nickel forged steel and weighs a little over half a metric tonne. You can't lift it either. But you can rejoice. There's a crane here.’
‘All right, girl, do you even know what you're doing? These things are very complicated and very expensive. Has anyone explained to you how they work? Let us have a go, we can do it.’
Anna: ‘Actually...’
Fun fact: I'm the engineer who designed, developed and engineered this thing.

 

[lifeis2short2b]

It's a choice and thank God they have that choice. But the women who hook themselves to such men should accept and understand that they're hitching up to a guy who will be at work when the markets open in London if that's what he has to do.

The guy might be a great provider but shit companionship.

Consequently I have little sympathy for some woman who gets involved with Elon Musk knowing his track record yet expecting him to be different. For her.

Memo girls: Whoever he is he ain't going to change just for you.

This has nothing to do with some God or a liberal woman it is just an opinion from someone that has a conservative point of view. I am 100% certain that you can find same views about conservative woman or any other political party that you don"t agree with.

 

[ll74]

Oh fun ..... adding some illuminati horseshit to the mix

 

[Rightguide]

The part you're missing, Reichy, is that your inability to find happy women is not a reflection of the women you're encountering, but instead is a reflection on the type of man you are.

I’ve never had trouble finding or enjoying the company of happy women, there have been plenty, some even here. What I avoid, like most men of means with better things to do than smash with every Friday-night distraction with cleavage, are the angry left-wing women who wear misery like a fashion accessory. They are a scourge on the dating scene.

My professional duties aside, I go where I please, when I please, and I value that freedom. Given the scope of my interests and curiosity, surrendering it to a captive arrangement isn’t something I’m eager to commit to at this stage of my life. It's not that I don't respect the institution of marriage or family life, I do, it's not my short-term goal.