Men have the biggest stake in the success of their home nation. They survive by being the winners. Defeat, at the very least, means a significant reduction in access to quality women, and in many cases in history has been met with outright genocide.
Women, even as part of a less successful or defeated nation, need primarily to be beautiful and exercise good mate selection. Their reproductive survival is less tied to their homelands success, and more tied to appeasing powerful actors within their given societal context.
This is reductionist, and both sexes have serious stakes in the well being of their home society. But when it comes to building and leading a nation in a competitive geopolitical landscape, men, on average, possess a natural understanding and inclination towards successful, long term strategic decision making. Women, on average, will tend towards short term intrasocietal appeasement, neglecting the long term, outward-facing strategic outlook. This seems to inevitably lead to an irreconcilable weakening of society.
Have any societies lasted more than a few hundred years with women having an equal or greater guvernatorial say?
Women are fantastic contributors to a society in many ways, but it needs to be recognized that governance largely belongs to the male role. Not doing so is another suicidal rejection of reality.
Damn right. Men have it in their genes that they have to defend their territory.
Feminists retards seem to think that a few millennia ago men of thousands of different human societies all got together and said "hey guys, let's oppress women". Did I say human societies? Even most mammals have gender roles.
There must be a reason if all societies of human history have been "patriarchal". The only society which hasn't been, ours, is literally being colonized by a patriarchal one (Islam) even if they are inferior in terms of IQ, technology, etc.
Female hypergamy will be happy with an invasion by other tribes, and even a race war. The females throughout history that have passed down their genes have not been the ones that stood up to their conquerors as their men did, but who laid down and switched sides when their men were killed.
Women don't value competitiveness and independence, not to mention rationality over feelings.
Giving the vote to women was a mistake.
Downvote away, but you all know that we wouldn't be in this shit if men hadn't been emasculated.
Men have the biggest stake in the success of their home nation. They survive by being the winners. Defeat, at the very least, means a significant reduction in access to quality women, and in many cases in history has been met with outright genocide.
Women, even as part of a less successful or defeated nation, need primarily to be beautiful and exercise good mate selection. Their reproductive survival is less tied to their homelands success, and more tied to appeasing powerful actors within their given societal context.
This is reductionist, and both sexes have serious stakes in the well being of their home society. But when it comes to building and leading a nation in a competitive geopolitical landscape, men, on average, possess a natural understanding and inclination towards successful, long term strategic decision making. Women, on average, will tend towards short term intrasocietal appeasement, neglecting the long term, outward-facing strategic outlook. This seems to inevitably lead to an irreconcilable weakening of society.
Have any societies lasted more than a few hundred years with women having an equal or greater guvernatorial say?
Women are fantastic contributors to a society in many ways, but it needs to be recognized that governance largely belongs to the male role. Not doing so is another suicidal rejection of reality.
Damn right. Men have it in their genes that they have to defend their territory.
Feminists retards seem to think that a few millennia ago men of thousands of different human societies all got together and said "hey guys, let's oppress women". Did I say human societies? Even most mammals have gender roles.
There must be a reason if all societies of human history have been "patriarchal". The only society which hasn't been, ours, is literally being colonized by a patriarchal one (Islam) even if they are inferior in terms of IQ, technology, etc.
Female hypergamy will be happy with an invasion by other tribes, and even a race war. The females throughout history that have passed down their genes have not been the ones that stood up to their conquerors as their men did, but who laid down and switched sides when their men were killed.
I re-read this post again, it's very interesting. I agree wholeheartedly.
Saved.