To be alarmed at the number of women who are throwing support behind causes that are clearly anti-woman?

[DorothyGaleFromKansas]

With the recent threads about flags/immigrants and Charlie Kirk etc, there seem to be a bewildering number of women supporting causes that directly go against their own interests, and it’s baffling and frankly a bit disturbing.

Reform have voted against tougher laws on stalking, sexual harassment and upskirting, against clamping down on revenge porn, and against further protections in the workplace. Farage cited Andrew Tate as “an important voice for men”.

Then you have Trump, who was found to have committed rape, forced himself into changing rooms where teenagers were undressing, made sexual comments about his own daughter, not to mention 34 other felonies, and that’s before we even get to the Epstein files.

Charlie Kirk said that women should only vote if they were voting for the candidate chosen by their husband, that women shouldn’t go on to higher education unless it was to find a husband, that women should have to submit to their husbands, and that little girls as young as 9 or 10 including his own daughters should be forced to give birth to babies conceived as a result of rape.

What has happened to us that there are so many women willing to endorse attitudes like this? And how do we fix it?! How have we sunk so low that there are women who think this is what we all deserve? It’s terrifying.

Just because I don't think Charlie Kirk should have been murdered doesn't mean I agree with every single one of his views.The woke gloating and gravedancing has been absolutely disgusting and shows they do truly want to kill people who they personally disagree with.

Also all political parties do some bad things and some good things. All are harmful to women in some form or other. It's a case of pick your poison.

Not agreeing with your own priorities doesn't mean they don't care about women's interests.

It’s not a left or right thing. No party is pro-women, they just push different male-centred agendas. With the right it’s a varying mix of ‘kinder, kuche, kirche’ and old-fashioned sexism and with the left it’s ‘sex work is work’ and ’trans women are women, no debate’. Both sides are misogynistic and see women as secondary human beings.

What does any of that have to do with what I said? I am sure in those countries there are many women who share my desires.

It’s also a laughable inconsistency that women need men to protect them from men.

This

Apparently if both parties are drunk and the woman says no it's irrelevant because the law says all sex while drunk is rape.

I’ll try and find it but apart from the one about saying 10 year old girls shouldn’t have abortions (something I fundamentally disagree with as I’m fiercely pro choice) I can’t find any saying women shouldn’t vote, that women should submit to their husbands and that they shouldn’t be able to go to college. Are you certain he said these things?

https://emilyinyourphone.substack.com/p/charlie-kirk-is-panicking-about-womens

"I’ve written in the past how JD Vance uses the term “family” to hide his misogyny. And Kirk uses the same language. He says a woman not telling her husband she’s voting for Harris “is the embodiment of the downfall of the American family. I think it's so gross, it's so just nauseating."
And that’s because in his view, a family means that the man is the ultimate authority. He calls a vote for Harris “undermining” one's husband. "

The woke gloating and gravedancing has been absolutely disgusting and shows they do truly want to kill people who they personally disagree with.

😆😆😆

Which of them do you agree with? You say you agree with at least one, which suggests you agree with more than one? They are all objectionable?

The older I get the more convinced I am that humans cannot and will not survive their own stupidity

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOd1mKhjb6c/

he talks about women submitting to their husband here.

here he is just the latest time he said women should submit to their husband - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/charlie-kirk-taylor-swift-travis-kelce-engagement-b2814724.html

here he is telling a teenage girl she should only be allowed to go to college to find a husband - https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/charlie-kirk-girl-college-mrs-degree-video-b2773303.html

and here he is saying he’d force his daughters to carry a baby if they were raped as children- https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/s/mX2PMczjQZ

I know you haven’t bothered. Then you’d know you’re speaking about the Old Testament.

Do you need reminding of the new and everlasting covenant?

Most normal, not extremely online people do see it as disgusting though, don’t you get that?

I wonder how many MN posters would be disgusted if they found out their husbands secretly voted for Trump (or Farage or whatever) and would see it as an indication of a fundamental mismatch in values and failure to communicate?

The last time Tommy Robinson organised a march in London I was at Victoria station, early for my train, and spent an hour or so watching the train loads of people arriving from who knows where and congregating outside.

The predictability of the type of men there was depressing (and it was 99% men). The Wetherspoons in the station was heaving and it all felt Iike pre-match at Millwall . Pissed up blokes at 9am, dressed in football hooligan garb, aggressive, jeering ahd chanting. Big gangs of very young v boys and men rolling off trains with placcy bags full of cans in Stone Island jackets ready to ‘take our country back’.

Then a group of 20-odd women in England tops and Union Jack dresses, all made up like they were going on a hen do, came off a train with a huge banner saying ‘Save Our Kids’. All the blokes were taking their photo, and they were all laughing and joking. What a great day out!?!

It was fucking laughable. Save our kids from who or what? I’d like to save my kids from twats like your husbands and sons, who’s answer to everything is aggression and hatred and division.

A lot of people are just fucking thick, unfortunately, OP.

And huge amounts of women are so ground down by the patriarchy they can’t see that their own men are the problem as much as any ‘foreign’ man.

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”

🙂

I agree OP. Many of those women are on this thread. Will side with actual rapists because they support an aspect of their personal politics. It’s all a bit “Well, we like Mussolini because he makes the trains run on time”.

It’s a paternalistic perspective, that men sacrifice themselves for their wives, that they protect them. It is supposed to free women up to do and be whatever they want, because they are protected by a man. He is supposed to stand up for her, enable her and facilitate her to fulfil herself.
In return she looks after him, respects him, listens to him, bears children if that’s what they want. It’s supposed to be a mutual enhancement, that together the couple do better than they would apart, and it should be entered into freely with full knowledge on both sides.

That’s how it’s sold, and for many couples it works well. They commit to the betterment of the family rather than the individual.

When an individual doesn’t uphold their part- is cruel or abusive, particularly in secret- then it falls apart and the woman is generally more vulnerable.

The law and society is supposed to protect people when it falls apart, and help them get away and rebuild. They aren’t supposed to be trapped in an unhappy or abusive marriage.

The weight of support on here for anti-women activists and politicians has taken me by surprise too, op.

The reasoning on here gives me no hope for the short-term future. The likes of Labour not getting it right on women's rights doesn't justify aligning with movements who actually espouse the view women should get back in the kitchen. I also find it incredible that anyone might suggest the fact that women are at risk from men makes a world where they retreat into cosy male protectorship the answer. Even if that particular fantasy is your thing, it is just that. Women needs laws, the enforcement of laws and autonomy to protect themselves.

I'm unconvinced that extreme trans ideology that is pushing women to the far right, however. Unlike a few years ago, it is quite possible to challenge this openly while being centrist or even to the left in your politics. Piece in the Guardian this week about the book bannings in Scotland.

???

Where do those words appear in the OP?

I did not suggest any of it was rational, it clearly is not rational I suggested it was far from rational it comes from the limbic system (fight-flight-freeze-fawn) and sub conscious programming which again defies the reality that women think that their “safe” men will protect them from the other tribes unsafe men when the very much acknowledged reality is that it is the perceived “safe” men are by far the greater risk.

OK OP, if you are gonna start a thread you probably shouldn’t embellish. It’s really frustrating when people use the odd word to misrepresent what people say

here he is just the latest time he said women should submit to their husband

He didn’t say women should submit to their husbands. He (weirdly) asked Taylor Swift to. I don’t get why, but he didn’t say “women should”

here he is telling a teenage girl she should only be allowed to go to college to find a husband

No, he didn’t. He said a benefit of going to college could be to meet a life partner

and here he is saying he’d force his daughters to carry a baby if they were raped as children-

Ive already said I knew he said this and I think its abhorrent.

But he didn’t say the others OP, its really very naughty to twist people’s words. Theres plenty of misogynistic twats in the world you could have accurately quoted instead.

Brilliant post.