Conervative women considering giving up their right to vote

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Why can’t they just chose to…not vote. Hahaahah almost as if the “right” for women to vote is threatening their conservative identities lol. And they think leftists are the “snowflakes”.

They are right, against the right, thinking they are right

HAHAHAHAH I felt smart with that pun  

In the u.s. the common talking point of conservatives is that "we're not a democracy" so I ask why then do they vote or care about politics(politics are conservatives entire life in the u.s.)?

[Sugarcoat]

11 minutes ago, Elliott said:

In the u.s. the common talking point of conservatives is that "we're not a democracy" so I ask why then do they vote or care about politics(politics are conservatives entire life in the u.s.)?

Ok I don’t think I’ve heard that being said like that. But it makes sense the point you’re making. It’s like they’d want a “non democracy” only if its conservative style,  so they vote to make it that way , using democracy to try to make society less of a democracy, or something. 
 

 

Edited Friday at 02:15 AM by Sugarcoat

[Elliott]

14 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Ok I don’t think I’ve heard that being said like that. But it makes sense the point you’re making. It’s like they’d want a “non democracy” only if its conservative style,  so they vote to make it that way , using democracy to try to make society less of a democracy, or something. 
 

It's even more discordant than that, they oppose all taxes right, while simultaneously believing they should be able to dictate everyone's lifestyle. One of the efforts by them right now is that they want people that live in rural outside areas to be able to vote in the city elections, they want to vote where they don't even live.....

Edited Friday at 02:28 AM by Elliott

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

It's even more discordant than that, they oppose all taxes right, while simultaneously believing they should be able to dictate everyone's lifestyle. One of the efforts by them right now is that they want people that live in rural outside areas to be able to vote in the city elections, they want to vote where they don't even live.....

How do they manage to maintain that logic in their mind and it seeming reasonable to them 😂😁if it’s like you say, I don’t keep up much with some things 

Edited Friday at 03:43 AM by Sugarcoat

[BlueOak]

Nobody is forcing women to vote.

Its odd they want to force other women not to vote. 
 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

How do they manage to maintain that logic in their mind and it seeming reasonable to them 😂😁if it’s like you say, I don’t keep up much with some things 

They're taught from birth to lie to themselves and others, we call it "religion".

[Sugarcoat]

4 hours ago, Elliott said:

They're taught from birth to lie to themselves and others, we call it "religion".

I was taught religion too, but I questioned it early. Some minds don’t do that much perhaps…

[enchanted]

On 18/06/2026 at 9:26 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Can you explain to me how you got from women's advancement to sub replacement fertility rate? How the link is clear without any other possible factors affecting replacement fertility rates?

Great question. I'm happy to be challenged and proven wrong too if it's warranted. 

I hate to sound like a sexist conservative but if we remove gender roles and encourage women to do what men have historically done then there is many benefits to that (like more fulfilled women, female perspectives in more sectors, maybe better healthcare for certain demographics) however there is always unintended consequences. I suggest one of those consequences is the deep existential threat of sub replacement fertility. Men can't get pregnant after all and if the portion of the population that can is busy doing other things then the outcome seems obvious. 

So far we haven't found a good way to increase birthrates in the 1st world and saying it's because women don't have enough resources doesn't seem like the correct answer since historically and in the 3rd world women have way more kids whith much less resources. 

I find it odd that even talking about this taboo in most cases (except with the far right groups, who I detest). Also why is it ok to say and broadcasted everywhere that fast food, porn, and video games have made men lazy, weak, entitled, not interested in sex or families. But any criticism of female behavior that resulted from the excesses of modern day life is considered taboo and sexist? 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:33 AM by enchanted

[Natasha Tori Maru]

 

12 hours ago, enchanted said:

Great question. I'm happy to be challenged and proven wrong too if it's warranted. 

In the spirit of good discussion - here is my thesis  

What about the cost of living and providing for a family, and how this may factor in to birth rates?

How do you think modernity (dare I say, capitalism), with it's atomisation of our living (possible to order in almost all we need, smaller families, more appliances, less reliance on anyone else, isolation) affects our psychologies, mental health and cost to maintain such an existence?

The degradation of community as a result of atomisation means we rely on others less. No trade. No communal assistance. Smaller families to assist. Third spaces disintegrating. This is forfeit - and our cash and money now replace what community provided. We use our resources to supplant what we used to get from neighbors, friends, strong bonds with larger families.

Ever since the wars, when society put women to work, a new labour force was discovered. Capitalism has benefited greatly from this; when the wars ended, women remained working as a new labour force. Women benefited from this. It was a natural progression; we gained economic independence, career opportunities, greater freedom and protection from dependance on a spouse.

But there are many systemic unintended consequences to the above. The dual income trap arose; Housing markets and living standards adjusted upward around this new reality. Households that live on one income are priced out. 

I would argue it is this modern 'atomisation' that is, also, artificially causing a divide between men and women, which is acting as a red herring for the real problem: runaway capitalism. Men and women face different tensions as a result. Men historically derived meaning from provision, protection, family leadership, skilled labour, community status etc. This role has changed with modernity. Women face a different set of issues; expectation to build a career, maintain financial independence, raise children, maintain relationships, manage the house etc. Everyone works harder, we all feel less secure. This doesn't mean women working is the problem, but more that institutions probably haven't adapted that well to a world where all adults participate in the labour market. Social media rhetoric likes to cement itself right in the middle and leverage this pressure by creating men vs women dialogues. It's a red herring for the real problem.

Depression, hopelessness, stress, meaninglessness result from the above. The future looks bleak - it's no wonder birth rates are falling in first wor;d countries

Poorer counties simply do not suffer from this laceration from community and atomisation. They retain community. Family. Bonds between each other. Positively affecting mental health and happiness. They have yet to face the new systemic problems we do, as first world countries.

[Hojo]

Its a bait to get liberals to not vote.

[enchanted]

14 hours ago, Hojo said:

Its a bait to get liberals to not vote.

Probably lol

[enchanted]

On 19/06/2026 at 11:50 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

 

In the spirit of good discussion - here is my thesis  

I do appreciate the reply @Natasha Tori Maru especially since you are ever articulate and intelligent with your answers. 

If the answer to larger families means capatilism has to end I would be happy since I hate capitalism too. 

So the disconnect is that even the most liberal and anti-capitalist people in the first world celebrate women's advancement and not stay at home moms or large families.

The first world sees women's advancement as the ultimate good. But is it? If society collapses so more women can play the professional ego game with the men. Is that a win?

Poor countries have more community, more kids, but also from a first world perspective are much more sexist and surpessive. If that a good trade off?

I don't know The answers maybe We need to grow babies in test tubes or something. 

Edited 4 hours ago by enchanted

[Lila9]

Right-Wing Women by Andrea Dworkin explains this in detail.

 

Here is a short YouTube summary:

 

 

 

Right-wing conservative women are only an extreme example of women who uphold the patriarchy.

 

But the world isn't divided into women who uphold the patriarchy and women who don't uphold the patriarchy.

 

Most women uphold the patriarchy to various extents, whether strategically or unconsciously. Not necessarily in obvious ways, such as fighting to take away women's rights, like some conservative women. 

 

It can be as small and subtle as believing sexist and misogynistic stereotypes and seeing other women through those lenses, judging themselves and other women harshly according to patriarchal beauty standards, repressing femininity and judging it in others, not believing women who have gone through sexual assault and male violence, turning a blind eye to violence against women worldwide, often taking the male pov automatically to gain status and to bond with men, justifying and overly empathizing with predatory men only to appear to be the "bigger person", putting other women down to appear "cool" and "not like other girls" in order to gain approval and validation from men, even the most average and morally inferior men, and so on.

Women of all kinds, to varying degrees, can do these things because we were raised in a patriarchal, misogynistic, hypermasculine, and violent society.

Since many of us are not aware of the bigger picture, we act selfishly in order to survive in the system and gain a temporary advantage, without realizing that it comes at the expense of other women, and at the end, indirectly, to ourselves, because it preserves the system that opresses us.

If it's not hurting us when we are pretty, young, naive, submissive, spiritually repressed, pleasing (which what patriarchy often values in women the most), then it will hurt us when we are older, uglier (according to patriarchy), more assertive, spiritually awaken, opinionated, intelligent and wise.

 

No woman is really protected under patriarchy. No women is protected from systemic gender based violence and oppression.

 

We can only be truly free and protected from violence when all women are free and protected from violence.

 

It is easy to look at the most extreme cases of right-wing women and laugh at them for their foolish and low-consciousness behavior, but it is much harder to look at ourselves and notice where we, as women, do the same, even if not in such extreme ways.

 

This is why it is so important for women to completely deconstruct the patriarchy. It is equally important for men as well.

 

In order to deconstruct the patriarchy, we first need to understand it: what it is and how it affects all aspects of our lives.

 

This is a simple analogy of what patriarchy is (the famous boot analogy):

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Lila9

[caspex]

Natural Selection

[enchanted]

This is relevant here. First prompt: men are better leaders than women.

Watch how 20 Maga women argue for this claim while the liberal guy is against it! 

 

[Elliott]

18 hours ago, Lila9 said:

 

 

 

Here's conservative women