houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

So where is this socialization gap? It does not really exist. Rather, it is just a retarded rationalization by feminists stupid enough to think that strength differences are a result of socialization.

But if you only ever went through life where you can be placed in positions you never should have been in due to state backed gender quotas, it is that surprising that they would think this would apply to biological differences?

Anyone who knows anyone with daughters knows that girls have roughly the same amount of opportunities to participate in sports. Sure, not all the same sports, but girls are provided with the same opportunities to engage in physical activities as boys.

And it is not as if most parents care that much if their children are the best athletes ever. Rather, they just want to give them opportunities to exercise, compete and have fun.

So sure, the woman with a job title can be referred to as such. But if she cannot do the job, then is she really an engineer? Obviously not.

So when we apply this same mindset to other areas, many women will think that they can socially assert other things to become reality.

But if you do not realize that social assertions can only create illusions, you can believe idiotic things like women being just as strong as men, but men are socially conditioned to do sports more than women.

I theorize that women believe that the power of social conditioning can alter reality is due to the fact that for them, it is mostly true.

"Women need to be made engineers so that young girls will be inspired to become engineers!"

You may get a few more women "engineers" with social conditioning and government quotas, but that is only an illusion if women are not fit to be engineers. But for the feminist advocates, the title itself means that the woman is an engineer by title alone.

I do not call for our government to become benevolent and "do more" to address issues. Rather, I would prefer they piss off and leave people more alone and allow people to solve problems more or less on their own. Some subsidiarity would be great, so that if there is a problem with criminals in your area, you can get others in your area to address the issue without these assholes impeding progress so that they can do jack shit to address the issues.

When I see articles like this, I come to understand that our government has the capability to go after real criminals and put a stop to a lot of issues that we currently have, but they choose not to. Rather, they prioritize other things, like "suspects" who were not even there.

On the other hand, they will of course let every arsonist and murderer during the BLM protestors off scot-free.

Remember, our government is evil and hates you.

So if you ever wonder "where is the anti-war left when Obama is dropping bombs on foreign countries?" they are probably out there protesting all the same. It is just that they are only amplified as "important" by the media when it is convenient to their narrative.

This applies for many, many other issue, because it turns out that leftist useful idiots are no longer important once the left has power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD7Ol0gz11k

Something about what was said in this video is worth bringing up. Not whether or not she is an idiot for being a communist, but the "I protested against Obama" part.

I do not doubt that she did. The reason why those like Piers Morgan do not believe her is because when she was protesting Obama, it got ignored because she was not useful to the leftist establishment. They only care to highlight such protests when someone on the right is in power.

And in some cases, there are people who are simply apathetic to politics. When I first talked to these people who simply chose to write in Mickey Mouse or any other fictional character for President, I used to get upset because "their vote could have made a difference." But now, I realize that they are by no means any problem. Especially not compared to those who are the low-information type that keep voting for more freebees from the government.

Whenever I hear "if you have a problem with it, you need to vote," they fail to understand that many of the problems cannot be voted away. Along with that, they never should have been problems that would have been brought to a vote in the first place. That is, government should have remained less of a factor in our lives, thus making the vote "less critical."

Even when voting is counted fairly and all that, in most cases one vote means very little with the vast number of votes. Though this is more of a size of population issue rather than democracy/republicanism itself.

Also, getting the most votes for a candidate/issue does not mean that the outcome is actually the best. Rather, it is just the outcome that is most popular.