Conervative women considering giving up their right to vote

[aurum]

14 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

It's a matter of an individual lifestyle choice/preference. Both sides would like to eliminate the opposing side's lifestyle preference, but that's never going to happen.

It's not just a matter of individual choice. Because your choices will inevitably affect everyone else. That's just being part of a collective / community.

14 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

The ultimate goal should be to no longer need the goverment to exist, and if there is such an objective, then voting/not voting makes little to no difference in the advancement of this goal

That is not the ultimate goal.

Inevitably, you will need some kind of central organizational entity. We call that government. Government is going no where.

 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

14 minutes ago, aurum said:

It's not just a matter of individual choice. Because your choices will inevitably affect everyone else. That's just being part of a collective / community.

If other people within a community get affected by the individual choices of X number of people, such that it become a majority choice/culture, then it must mean that choice serves a usefull function within that society and for those individuals. It might lead to negative or positive outcomes (or negative/positive externalities), but there's no denying it serves a function

Also, I don't think it has to be inevitable, highly developed and experienced individuals will not get influenced by other people's choices. Although social engineering will always work on the young, inexperienced and easily swayable people

18 minutes ago, aurum said:

That is not the ultimate goal.

Inevitably, you will need some kind of central organizational entity. We call that government. Government is going no where.

I don't think it is necessarilly inevitable, goverment is currently inevitable, and will be for a very long time, because it serves a certain set of functions. Such as security, justice/law and resource allocation for example. But I don't think these have to be provided by the goverment, it's not a law of physics or something. I believe under certain extraordinary conditions, goverment would be able to be dissolved. Under normal conditions however, yes, it is inevitable. Agree to dissagree I guess

[thepixelmonk]

yes we will be repealing the 19th and restoring sanity to our nation. universal suffrage was a mistake. it was spearheaded by radical activists, opposed by huge numbers of women originally, and still opposed by many conservative women today. because they have not been infected by the mind virus of feminism and realize once we restore voting rights to households all our problems will be pretty much instantly solved overnight.

Edited August 6 by thepixelmonk

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Aint nothing is gonna change except most of us slurping our bug flavoured soups, patiently waiting for UBI checks each month lmao

[thepixelmonk]

On 6/21/2026 at 1:21 PM, Elliott said:

Here's conservative women

This was an event to honor her husband that had just been assassinated. Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk, conservative idols.

this is morally sick and depraved. Erika has been dragged through some of the most disgusting slander imaginable. I was bawling my eyes out the second his death was announced. if you knew literally anything about Charlie you would know he would've absolutely loved the pyrotechnics and everything about that event. Charlie was dearly loved and his memorial was extremely important to us. thinking you know better than the love of his life and now widow is such peak derangement I don't even know what to say.

[Yimpa]

I am being forced to vote as a man due to Texas being Texas, so technically I also gave up my right to vote (cus I still want to vote) and let the man vote for me. What a mindfuck!

Edited August 9 by Yimpa

[Elliott]

On 8/6/2026 at 2:33 AM, thepixelmonk said:

this is morally sick and depraved. Erika has been dragged through some of the most disgusting slander imaginable. I was bawling my eyes out the second his death was announced. if you knew literally anything about Charlie you would know he would've absolutely loved the pyrotechnics and everything about that event. Charlie was dearly loved and his memorial was extremely important to us. thinking you know better than the love of his life and now widow is such peak derangement I don't even know what to say.

Lol and now here's Lindsay graham's sister celebrating his death too

 

 

 

 

American Enterprise Institute - AEI

https://www.aei.org

Partisanship, Marriage, and Family Stability in the Trump Era

Oct 31, 2024 — Republicans are slightly more likely to have divorced. Specifically, 42% of ever-married Republicans in this age group have divorced,

 

 

 

The Society Pages

https://thesocietypages.org

Red States, Blue States, and Divorce: Understanding the Impact of ...

Jul 28, 2014 — Even so, religiously conservative states Alabama and Arkansas have the second and third highest divorce rates in the U.S., at 13 per 1000 people

 

 

The Baebel Belt lit up like a chrishmass tree

Refined divorce rates per 1,000 married women

Edited Monday at 06:43 AM by Elliott

[Elliott]

On 8/9/2026 at 0:09 PM, Yimpa said:

I am being forced to vote as a man due to Texas being Texas, so technically I also gave up my right to vote (cus I still want to vote) and let the man vote for me. What a mindfuck!

 

 

 

 

Conservatives forcing boys to play in women's sports and use womens restrooms, they hate women. 

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 06:59 AM by Elliott

[sholomar]

The mistake people here make is thinking the left wing in America would make any difference at all, when both sides are going to lead to the decline as China becomes the next superpower from having competent leadership and a work ethic. You don't get a prosperous nation handing out money for people to do nothing, and importing mass amounts of immigrants while getting rid of prisons and thinking we can habilitate criminals. (Democratic socialist of america issues) That's not going to work. No doubt about it democracy suffers from a human nature problem, but western leftism isn't going to fix it. Leftism is just another human nature (or evolutionary) problem to deal with, this idea people should get something for nothing and get overly coddled on a planet where evolutionary living is harsh, outright savage. 

Financialization is what broke the west, not even globalization, just financialization, trying to make money from playing around with assets, the top have become parasites in the system just like the bottom. Private equity is a cancer in the system.  Maybe Norway/Sweden come close to doing the best job in the west. Beyond that I'm not that impressed.   Western politicians on both sides are mostly corrupt and inept, or suffer from flawed idealism that would never manifest in real life to successful outcomes.   Tell me why people on the left are shutting down nuclear plants again?  Energiewende isn't going as planned now is it... solar and wind are great but you need more then that...

Will say China is impressing me... top down autocracies can work with competent leadership.  They tell them how things will be done and they get done.   In any case, voting in the west is largely useless, at least at the federal level in the United States.  Lipstick on a pig is all either party will get done as they are more concerned with ballooning the national debt and lining their pockets and "free stuff" (both sides) and their modern monetary theorist purposely limiting supply to inflate prices and margins to make for a stonk bubble of epic proportions as wages lag.  Price controls won't fix anything either, you need more supply like the global "elites" (more like idiots) are complaining about China doing. 

Edited Monday at 10:38 AM by sholomar

[Elliott]

3 hours ago, sholomar said:

The mistake people here make is thinking the left wing in America would make any difference at all, when both sides are going to lead to the decline as China becomes the next superpower from having competent leadership and a work ethic. You don't get a prosperous nation handing out money for people to do nothing, and importing mass amounts of immigrants while getting rid of prisons and thinking we can habilitate criminals. (Democratic socialist of america issues) That's not going to work. No doubt about it democracy suffers from a human nature problem, but western leftism isn't going to fix it. Leftism is just another human nature (or evolutionary) problem to deal with, this idea people should get something for nothing and get overly coddled on a planet where evolutionary living is harsh, outright savage. 

Financialization is what broke the west, not even globalization, just financialization, trying to make money from playing around with assets, the top have become parasites in the system just like the bottom. Private equity is a cancer in the system.  Maybe Norway/Sweden come close to doing the best job in the west. Beyond that I'm not that impressed.   Western politicians on both sides are mostly corrupt and inept, or suffer from flawed idealism that would never manifest in real life to successful outcomes.   Tell me why people on the left are shutting down nuclear plants again?  Energiewende isn't going as planned now is it... solar and wind are great but you need more then that...

Will say China is impressing me... top down autocracies can work with competent leadership.  They tell them how things will be done and they get done.   In any case, voting in the west is largely useless, at least at the federal level in the United States.  Lipstick on a pig is all either party will get done as they are more concerned with ballooning the national debt and lining their pockets and "free stuff" (both sides) and their modern monetary theorist purposely limiting supply to inflate prices and margins to make for a stonk bubble of epic proportions as wages lag.  Price controls won't fix anything either, you need more supply like the global "elites" (more like idiots) are complaining about China doing. 

Democrats want to cut defense spending which is over half of u.s. discretionary spending, and tax corporations. The only time democrats have increased the debt has been in a careening economy crashed by the previous republican, which happens every time a republican gets in.

 

 

The problem with china is that all of their prosperity is tied to western prosperity. Wiithout the liberal west, China would be Nigeria. China is the west's industrial center, not an autonomous nation.

Edited Monday at 01:32 PM by Elliott

[Yimpa]

8 hours ago, Elliott said:

they hate women. 

They do not hate women. They love and accept women as long as it fits into the rules of what a woman is, based on what their religion taught them.

But this is not an absolute rule. 

For example, my mother is a conservative, but she has stage green values in her. So when I came out to her as a trans woman, she didn’t reject me and actually met it with curiosity. Me coming out to her has made our relationship 100x better than before. Before I transitioned, we were at war with each other. I was like Trump before.

Edited Monday at 03:46 PM by Yimpa

[Elliott]

19 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

They do not hate women. 

They do

Taliban love women too, right? /s.  "Just their religion"

 

https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/08/world/asia/afghanistan-public-execution

Officials in Afghanistan, where the amateur video was filmed, believe the woman was executed because two Taliban commanders had a dispute over her, according to the governor of the province where the killing took place.

 

 

To be more accurate, they hate everyone, even themselves, that's why they truly don't recognize racism, they hate everyone/afraid of everyone. They don't actually hate them because they're women or black, they just use that to exercise their hate against them.

Edited Monday at 03:57 PM by Elliott

[Emerald]

On 6/18/2026 at 6:04 PM, enchanted said:

Just for a different perspective than what's politically correct in liberal circles but cheering for women's advancement is cheering for an sub replacement fertility rate.  Who cares if women can finally be doctors and politicians when there aren't any people left to govern or heal?

Nativity: Canada now has more deaths than births and one province just broke a record https://share.google/dMTqmHtAwHp8iqceK

First off, I don't think the drop in birth rates arise from women entering the workforce. The latter doesn't cause the former.

But I believe both are separate flowers growing from the same root system.

So, women entering the workforce and the declining population both stem from a common cause. But they don't have a cause and effect relationship with one another.

Realistically, the population drop and women's engagement in the work force arises from the transition from Stage Blue farming communities with agrarian values to Stage Orange modern post-industrial societies with values like achievement, progress, and expansion.

And this agrarian to industrial/post-industrial transition leads to shifting values away from pure survival and having a bunch of kids to work on your mom and pop farm, to a greater expectation of progress and expansion outside of the home.

And it also requires and allows both men and women to leave the family farm behind and go to work in other places of employment... like factories, companies, and other such institutions. 

And that leads to men and women who are interested in parenthood to choose to have fewer kids, in order to build a deeper relationship with their kids... rather than having as many kids as possible to keep the family farm up.

Then, some people don't want kids and are in a freer state to choose a better option for themselves. And because they aren't stuck with the dilemma of "Who will tend to the farm?", they don't have to have kids.

Ultimately, it is these macrocosmic shifts in technology, values, and societal structures away from the values that govern a Stage Blue community based subsistence farming and towards Stage Orange industrialization that cause the drop in birth rates.

And this same shift also enabled men (and a few decades later, enabled women) to enter a non-agrarian post-industrial work-force instead of tending to a family farm, like most men and women do in agrarian societies. 

Then, the values of the subsistence farmers are also dying out, as we go further into the modern era and grow more adapted to the current state of society.

For example, my paternal grandma grew up on a farm with 10 brothers and sisters in the 1930s and 40s. She was one of 11. And that was a common number of children to have.

Then, she moved away from the farm into the outskirts of Atlanta in the mid/late 50s to early 60s and had 5 children, but one died in infancy. Then, two of her surviving children has 1 child each... and the other two of her surviving children had 3 children each.

Then, the grandkids... two of us has 0 children, two of us have 1 child, three of us have 2 children (I'm in this camp), and one of us has 3 children. 

So, as there's a move away from family farming and its values.... there's also a move towards having fewer kids, as it's just not necessary and usually not desired to have a bunch.

But if you're willing to go back to family subsistence farming and forego modernity to have a wife and 10 kids to work the farm with you, feel free to do so, if you think it will help.

But don't ask women to go back to their traditional role as a subsistence farmers while you stay in the post-industrial workforce, working for a paycheck... as that's something that also runs downstream of the causes of the dropping birth rate.

But ultimately, I just see this transition as inevitable... and as something that humanity will have to try to adapt to.

And as long as the drop in fertility is relatively gradual over 10 generations, it would actually be better in the long run for the planet and the human populace.

Right now, the global birth rate is a little bit over the replacement rate. It's something like 2.2 children per woman. And the replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.

So, we still haven't reached the apex of growth at the top of the parabola... globally speaking.

But within the next generation or so, the global replacement rate will dip below 2.1. And that's when we'll need to start transitioning our systems to work with a gradually shrinking population.

The main catastrophic birthrate drop would be where we have to make those transitions over the course of 3 or 4 generations... like what South Korea will almost certainly be experiencing.

(Side note: And from what I've looked at, it seems like that drop might be coming from hyper-focus towards school and work monopolizing ALL of one's time from childhood onward. We're talking 16 hour days packed with schoolwork from small childhood through college.... and literally no time to socialize. And the adult workplace is very similar.

There are also very strong pressures on the populace to be thin and look young, which are much stronger than in other places... and pregnancy or being a parent/spouse might mess with people's self-images. And it causes women (and men) to under-eat... which isn't good for fertility. 

Also, misogyny is often stated as a reason why many women have decided to forego marriage and children in South Korea.

But I think it's more of the hardcore pressure to perform at the highest level in all categories in all hours of the day and extreme judgment and shame if those standards aren't matched.)

But I suspect most places in the Global North will likely be able to sustain their workforces through immigration from the Global South, where the birth rates are higher. And that will carry us through that transition period more gradually.

I read somewhere that we may find a stabilizing point of 2.5 billion people... which is what the global population was in the 1950s.

So, our population shot up very high, very quickly. And what goes up must come down. We can't expand forever without contraction.

[Emerald]

On 6/19/2026 at 11:02 AM, enchanted said:

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

Traditional gender roles aren't the set-up that you see in shows from the 1950s.  

That "man goes to work and woman stays home" dynamic is very modern and borne out of industrialization and the increased wealth of industrialization during the golden age, which enabled a single middle class income to support a whole family. 

That's why everyone liked Ike so much.

So, the 1950s set-up is actually very modern. And women staying at home and only being a mom is also very modern... and only something that was ever available to those wealthy enough to support that.

Real traditional gender roles are...

The man and woman and their 10 children wake up at 5am.

The man plows the fields and does the heavy manual farm work with his sons, which require strength.

The woman milks the cows, tends to the chickens, tends to the crops, prepares all the meals, sews all the clothes, washes all the clothes by hand. And the daughters do the same thing. The elder daughters do most of the caring for the younger children.

The man, women, and their 10 children all retire to a small home where they fall asleep at sundown.

That's what traditional gender roles ACTUALLY look like.

What you're thinking of as traditional gender roles are what happened during industrialization in the several decade window between when men entered the industrial workforce... and women were permitted to do the same.

That's like the 1930s though the 1960s. And unfortunately, it's what a lot of people think "traditional" means.

But traditional actually means peasants... ruled over by a landlord in a pre-Capitalist farming community.

[Inliytened1]

This is ridiculous. Like women would stip voting conservative or not.  

[Inliytened1]

39 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Traditional gender roles aren't the set-up that you see in shows from the 1950s.  

That "man goes to work and woman stays home" dynamic is very modern and borne out of industrialization and the increased wealth of industrialization during the golden age, which enabled a single middle class income to support a whole family. 

That's why everyone liked Ike so much.

So, the 1950s set-up is actually very modern. And women staying at home and only being a mom is also very modern... and only something that was ever available to those wealthy enough to support that.

Real traditional gender roles are...

The man and woman and their 10 children wake up at 5am.

The man plows the fields and does the heavy manual farm work with his sons, which require strength.

The woman milks the cows, tends to the chickens, tends to the crops, prepares all the meals, sews all the clothes, washes all the clothes by hand. And the daughters do the same thing. The elder daughters do most of the caring for the younger children.

The man, women, and their 10 children all retire to a small home where they fall asleep at sundown.

That's what traditional gender roles ACTUALLY look like.

What you're thinking of as traditional gender roles are what happened during industrialization in the several decade window between when men entered the industrial workforce... and women were permitted to do the same.

That's like the 1930s though the 1960s. And unfortunately, it's what a lot of people think "traditional" means.

But traditional actually means peasants... ruled over by a landlord in a pre-Capitalist farming community.

Only now its the Dad staying home and milking the cows  while Mom plows the fields

Edited 4 hours ago by Inliytened1