Why is EVERY SINGLE woman I meet a die hard liberal? They ask me out and it goes fine and all, and then they call me a racist or fascist when I talk about how I like Trump or how the "Syrian" refugees have ravaged Europe. I'm fed up with this and I just want to meet someone who won't fucking leave and ignore me for my views. Do conservative women how are slightly attractive exist somewhere? I know my college campus isn't the prime spot for it, but is there anything I can do?
>pic related savior of the female gender
>conservative
>attractive
Pick one
>>17358702
Tell me about it
>>17358699
>and then they call me a racist or fascist when I talk about how I like Trump or how the "Syrian" refugees have ravaged Europe
Gee, I wonder why...
Odds are you present your views obnoxiously. Consider y heway you express yourself.
That said, there is no tolerable way to express admiration or support for Trump.
>>17358699
Politics and religion should really be put on the backburner as far as conversations go until you get to know each other better imo.
Seriously, why talk about it?
You could try attending a church.
The trouble you're gonna have is that the clever and educated have a strong liberal bias. They come into college conservative and come out liberal.
You're pumping a dry well, is what I'm saying.
>>17358717
>consider the way
Damn phone keyboard.
>>17358699
>Why is EVERY SINGLE woman I meet a die hard liberal?
Because women are more emotional and don't logic. Pretty obvious
>attractive conservative women
Hard to come by it seems. Live in the South and go to Church...maybe? That's your best bet
I'd recommend just going out with whoever and just not talking about politics or gradually redpilling them without being obnoxious or forthcoming
>ignore your views
Just explain how you see the situation without coming off as a /pol/ack.
>>17358715
Hello Bern victim
>>17358717
I swear I bring it up only when they ask me, other wise I hide my power level.
"Anon, who are you voting for?"
"Trump, I believe it's high time we get something done for a change"
"Oh..."
Dumps me the next day. That's all I said. That isn't the problem.
>>17358718
See above, I agree with you, but it's what it is.
>>17358720
>mfw I am at a Jesuit Catholic school in ROTC and still no luck.
It's absolutely devoid of any similar thoughts apart from my few fellow bros.
>>17358728
Fair points
>>17358699
Are you really so autistic that you can't hold edgy political beliefs during dates?
>>17358699
Good things to avoid one a first date:
Religion
Politics
Controversy
This shit has been standard for generations (i.e. dozens, possibly even hundreds of years).
Yeah you can branch in to those things, but only if you're both open to it, are both capable of having an actual conversation, and are both willing to have an open mind (which... given by your repeated failures with you being the common denominator... doesn't sound like you)
By the way, not liking trump, and being sympathetic to refugees does NOT make you a "die hard liberal".
If anything, you saying that it is, makes you sound more extremist and die hard in the opposite direction.
P.S. This is coming from a registered republican male (and the rest of my family/friends/girlfriend are all democrats).
just get a girlfriend who doesnt care much about politics, that way you can explain why your ways are correct 6 months down the line when she is more likely to be persuaded by logic after she knows youre a man of character and she wants to be with you.
id say most women are liberal by default so its somewhat rare to find one unless you're in an affluent area.
Maybe you should post this on /pol/
>>17358737
Have you ever paid any attention to Catholic doctrine, let alone Jesuit teachings? It's basically socialism with Jesus smeared over the top.
You're not gonna meet chicks in ROTC.
>>17358720
>the clever and educated have a strong liberal bias
Gee, I wonder why.
>>17358737
>Dumps me the next day. That's all I said. That isn't the problem.
Like I said with my second point. There are two kinds of people: those who intend to vote for Trump, and those who will never be able to take a Trump voter seriously in anyway.
>>17358699
>They ask me out and it goes fine and all, and then they call me a racist or fascist when I talk about how I like Trump or how the "Syrian" refugees have ravaged Europe. I'm fed up with this and I just want to meet someone who won't fucking leave and ignore me for my views. Do conservative women how are slightly attractive exist somewhere?
I consider myself somewhere in between (or, at least, anti-feminist/anti-SJW/anti-BLM--you get the idea) but I'm also a Satanist. That makes it hard to meet like-minded people.
>>17358718
>>17358737
Maybe just try to politely steer the conversation away from that topic then if she brings it up.
You could just be like "I was raised that politics and religion are bad topics for dating" or some shit like that.
>>17358794
Sounds like you're just a contrarian who doesn't like to think uncomfortable thoughts.
>>17358699
It might help that the liberal side supports female rights such as reproductive rights.
I mean, this is kind of like dating a Muslim person and telling them you're supporting Trump. He just apparently doesn't have a high opinion of women in general so of course self respecting women don't like him.
Why are you even talking about politics on dates? I never talk about that stuff with women.
you need to present your views in more nuanced ways
for instance
>so what do you think about the presidential election
>well I tend to generally lean to the conservative side, yeah Trump has said a lot of dumb and regrettable things, but honestly I think some of his policies make a lot of sense. Besides Hillary is one of the least inspiring politicians I've ever seen, and I just can't see myself backing her. But what do you think?
If you just come out and say "I'm a Trump supporter" or start talking about how much you hate muslims (as you apparently did) then obviously they're going to think you're just an idiot.
It really depends on WHY you're supporting Trump.
If you're basically doing it because you're hoping Washington will burn, that might give you a pass with some people. But if you actually, unironically believe the shit he says (I mean like you really think a big giant wall is a good idea or that our jerbs will magically come back from 20+ years ago if we make an economic declaration of war on the world), then they're dumping you because they're smarter than you. Being pro-Trump for those reasons makes you an idiot, not a conservative.
In all seriousness, though, women as a gender tend towards social cohesion and the welfare of the group so it's really not a surprise that they are more liberal.
Yes, but they are either butt ugly or hot enough to get away with it.
>>17358720
That's a truth that's becoming more and more dated. As more people go into college and come out parroting their professors, there are more idiots to hear those parroted ideals. Then they fit them in with thought patterns mid-2Ks liberals once deemed the hallmarks of a conservative (broad categories that determine who you are, external value of a human being is a thing, rules-are-rules) and become SJWs. And then there's the dropouts and basket weaving majors who were never particularly intelligent in the first place.
Before long, people go into colleges expecting bohemian basket weavers and rich jewish liberals to tell them how society should be and constantly argue against them - in their heads, because they expect to be expelled for disagreeing with what mainstream SJWs have, and form "enlightened"* conservative views without any criticism, completely reversing the affiliation between ideology and education in a couple of decades.
*let's get real here, there was never anything "objective" about love and tolerance for anyone either. if anything, staunch sexist, racist, homo/transphobics have a few good points about economic efficiency to be had.
>>17358849
Liberal women call abortion reproductive rights to make it sound like a more noble cause. It's actually counter-reproductive rights. The right to reneg on reproduction.
T. muslim who would not mind racial profiling to be applied to immigrants, refugees, and the working poor or increased surveillance
>>17359206
Amurrkan-style liberalism benefits women by giving them god-like status. Conservatism of any sort holds the radical notion that women are just normal people.
Why would women not bat for the team that pays the best?
>>17359206
and conservative anti-abortion activists call themselves "pro life" when they couldn't give less of a shit about that life the very second it exits the birth canal. Movements are free to call themselves whatever they want, that is not a productive area of discussion.
As for your stance on racial profiling, immigration should be based on the vetting of individuals rather than broad generalizations based on race. You say you're muslim, why? I just don't get it, how can you look at the state of the world and still believe in god?
>>17359215
>Amurrkan-style liberalism benefits women by giving them god-like status
in what way?
>>17359220
Basically, women in their system are always right, and you have to disprove the word or action of a woman to be true or good rather than a woman having to make their own sensible points or actions.
Blame beta orbiters and male feminists.
>>17359237
have you ever considered that this is just your own confirmation bias
I'm a pretty liberal guy and I don't consider that to be the case at all, I get into arguments about things like bias towards women in the courts, overstatement of the pay gap all the time. Things aren't just automatically taken for granted because the person who made a statement has a vagina.
>>17359247
>Things aren't just automatically taken for granted because the person who made a statement has a vagina.
here's the thing though: youre wrong, and clearly have never left your house
t. jealous homo tired of getting passed over for literally everything from jobs to lays when women are around
>>17359253
>I'm right and you're wrong
is this really your argument?
>>17359256
>"I EXPECT FIFTEEN DIFFERENT ACADEMIC SOURCES FOR EVERY CHARACTER IN YOUR POST"
>on /adv/
if anything, it only proves my point that you jump to their defense so hastily and yet have no real counter-argument other than "you personally have ~confirmation bias~"
If you want a full on gish gallop, go to /r9k/
>>17359270
sorry I regretted making that post the instant I sent it, what I really meant to say instead of "is this really your argument?" was "is this really all you have to say?"
I give you my personal experiences and all you say is "youre wrong" and then insult me, what's the point?
>>17358720
>They come into college conservative and come out liberal.
>Laughing Engineers
Granted, it's a complete sausage fest
>>17359272
> what's the point?
to inform you of your incorrectness
don't get me wrong, i'm pretty leftist too, but it's plain as day to see that women have a leg up in every field because of whitey's collective minority victimization complex extending to women
>>17359281
maybe, but they have a few legs down aswell like having to choose between kids and a career
>>17359287
> like having to choose between kids and a career
care to explain how men don't have to do the same, you meme-loving cuck?
>>17359287
Then don't have kids. Actions have consequences, do you want to set up some law where employers have to pretend a woman has experience she straight up doesn't have?
If her career comes first, don't have kids or hire a surrogate mother or whatever else. Just don't complain you take 9 months off+ and your peers have more market value now.
i don't know about american girls, but most girls i know (middle europe) are rather right-winged. there are a few liberal, left -winged ones, but they get slightly looked down on as the "hippies".
that said, it depends on how serious you are. for example, i'm all for national socialism as in "try to preserve your own country and save it from getting exploited". that's why my country regulraly passes pretty nazi-like new laws. but there are boundaries to that. i wouldn't say that "all non aryans need to get wiped out". simply because i CAn see the problem on a political level, but i can also recognize suffering on a personal level. i know there are a lot of "refugees" that do exploit the situation and those should get sent back or worse, no questions asked. but then again, i'm a mom and i know i would pack my stuff and bring my kids to savety too if i was in a region with a military crisis.
my bf is even more right winged than i am and the way he presented his political belives when we started dating DID turn me off. not because i don't inherently agree, but because he fails to acknowledge that there are exceptions to the rule. he came across as very narrow minded and even slightly dumb because of this.
i would advice you to not tell them the presidential candidat you picked. the selection is honestly pretty shitty. if you tell them you support trump, they will think you agree with EVERYTHING he has ever done. and he has done and said pretty idiotic stuff. so has every cndidat, but if she is voting for bernie or even hilary, she will instantly remember all the really dumb things he did and dismiss you based on you agreeing and encouraging those things. we have very right winged political partys too. i do agree with some of their belives, but not all. if someone told me they agree with all of them, i'd think they are stupid and pretty sheep like.
cont
>>17359298
cont.
Mostly because it shows me that you just follow a party because it's convenient. You don't have to use your own brain anymore. You pick one because you once thought they had similar values and views and then give them absolution. That's idiotic in my books. I believe that you sould have your own values and line of thought. Sometimes i do vote for that right winged party, because i have studies the material and have made a conscios decision, based on everything i know and belive about politics and society in general. Sometimes i pick more liberal partys because i feel like it is more thought trough. Sometimes i don't vote because i don't feel like i have enough knowledge to make a good decision. Sometimes i don't vote because i can't decide which the best solution would be. But simply voting for party X, because it's PARTY X, is pretty narrow minded and will make me question your intelligence.
You can discuss politics on a first date. But if you do, you have to do it right,. You will have to have an indepth discussion about it and explain your values and believes, and not just sound like a brainwashed nazi.
>>17359289
and now you're no longer worth talking to
>>17359297
obviously, but don't pretend it isn't a potential negative that men don't have to worry about
>>17359298
>i'm all for national socialism
I wouldn't say things like this if I were you. I read everything you wrote and you don't seem like a brainwashed nazi, but all of my extended family living in europe was wiped out by national socialists simply because of their religion. When you say something like that you're going to get labelled a nazi, and for good reason. Choose your words more carefully, a better choice for what you were trying to say is that you're all for nationalism.
>>17359300
>that men don't have to worry about
You know that men can be parents, right? Or are you too blinded by the prevalence of single mothers to realize it indeed takes two to tango
>>17359300
>obviously, but don't pretend it isn't a potential negative that men don't have to worry about
Because they find a woman who wants to be a housewife. The woman should take agency of her own, if she wants to be the breadwinner and have a husband stay at home she should find a man who agrees with that notion. She can either bite the bullet and carry the child herself, she can adopt, she can hire a surrogate mother. There are many choices, but all come with different consequences. Every choice has a drawback and none of them are hidden.
>>17358785
>There are two kinds of people: those who intend to vote for Trump, and those who will never be able to take a Trump voter seriously in anyway.
Faggots like you are far more obnoxious that a Trump supporter.
>>17359307
>nationalism
might be the better wording, yes. forgive me, since english obviously is not my first language. i would never label myself as a national socialist irl.
>>17359298
>they will think you agree with EVERYTHING he has ever done.
I once told someone I'm more inclined to vote for Trump over Hillary simply because he would cause congressional gridlock, while she would work with the existing establishment. It's not that I agree with Trump, but I believe that he would grind capital hill to a halt.
I was called a racist for this. Never did figure that one out.
>>17358699
You don't want a "conservative" woman. You want a woman who has no political views or knowledge who will agree with you on whatever you like. There is a reason educated women tend to lean the other way, and for the record, of all the conservative women in America, in a room, you're still going to have a hard time finding one who likes trump. Look for a woman who watches reality shows.
>>17359324
>you're still going to have a hard time finding one who likes trump
I'll find a way to clone Ann Coulter and you'll never stop me
>>17359307
Thank you greatest ally.
>>17359322
>Never did figure that one out.
sometimes you are just talking to someone who isn't very good at thinking. let it go and don't ponder over it too much
>>17359289
A man won't be asked in a job interview whether he plans on having kids (illegal in many places but it still happens), or rejected because he is a late twenties/early thirties guy who will probably start a family soon. Both because women will be out of the running for a while and because it is always assumed that if either parent starts working less, taking sick days to keep a sick child company etc, it's going to be the mother.
>>17359308
men don't carry children
>>17359338
>working less, taking sick days to keep a sick child company etc, it's going to be the mother.
because in 97% of the cases, it is
>>17358699
Sounds like she has good mate selection heuristics. Trump is net correct about some of the stuff he says, but framing it any other way, or being an outright supporter, shows you're a myopic and manipulable fool.
Anyway. Politics, philosophy, religion, and anything remotely technical or meaningful, should be avoided or presented loosely when getting to know someone. Don't be dishonest, the ideal is that both parties can connect and to create an environment where you can feel genuine with one another, but don't jump right in start slinging your opinions bluntly around everywhere. That's be like me saying bluntly that space is quantized and the universe is a finite state machine, and the other person returning that they think the universe is probably flat and infinite. Woops, presentation biases it towards argument, not casual exchange.
>>17359322
>a republican in the white house would cause more gridlock in a republican controlled congress than a democrat in the white house
how do you figure? The republican establishment's extreme dismay at Trump isn't because they can't work with him, its because they know he's unelectable.
>>17359338
>it is always assumed that if either parent starts working less, taking sick days to keep a sick child company etc, it's going to be the mother.
Because it's a safe assumption. Men typically drive more aggressively, so their insurance rates are higher even if an individual may drive cautiously. Women are typically the ones who quit to raise the kid, and take time off for pregnancy so they screen them with those kinds of questions.
Stereotypes don't evolve out of a vacuum.
>>17359331
Before November???
I strongly advise against marrying an infant.
>>17359347
I think you mean that he's not necessarily controllable or predictable. Politics is all about not breaking the script written by powerful donors.
>>17359341
Sure, I'm not saying that it's completely pulled out of thin air, but this can even disadvantage women in child bearing age who don't actually want kids. And you can try to make that known, but there's no guarantee you will be believed - many women downplay their desire for children for this reason, and even if they believe you are sincere, they can still think to themselves that you'll sing a different tune once the biological clock kicks in.
That and the reason that you're not supposed to ask is that people starting families, being involved parents and bonding with their newborn are also things that society as a whole benefits from. Of course, for one individual company it's most beneficial to ditch all the potentially pregnant employees, but overall shouldn't society take some form of care for preserving stable family life?
And it's easy to say that you should just have one income homes then, but you cannot just undo years of messages about how an independent person preferably makes their own money, working a job is being a contributing member of society and so on.
>>17359355
in addition to the fact that raising a family on a single income is quite difficult in this day and age
>>17359352
It's because he is a human being completely without tact who speaks on impulse alone. It's admirable to be honest and people are tired of politics as usual, but you can't be an effective leader if you're shitting out your mouth every day.
>>17359350
>It's okay to be sexist against men, but as soon as anyone assumes anything about women, they're horrible fascists who are ruining the world!!!
2bh im about ready to move to the us, buy a gun, and start capping random people. american whitey needs to stop shilling this SJW nonsense
>>17359350
driving a red car also increases your insurance rate
>>17359347
>how do you figure?
Hillary at the very least has support of the Democrats. Even Sanders is wringing his hands and following her.
Trumps support from the GOP would be extremely fractured.
>The republican establishment's extreme dismay at Trump isn't because they can't work with him, its because they know he's unelectable.
Are we talking about the same candidate here? I suggest you compare him and Jeb, who was supposed to be their nominee. His main selling point is that he's anti establishment, it's no surprise the establishment dislikes him.
>>17359355
>but overall shouldn't society take some form of care for preserving stable family life?
Again, what do you propose? The only solution I'm hearing is expecting companies to pretend they have experience they don't have. A woman who takes a year if not more off of work will likely never be on the same level as another person who never did so.
>>17359373
As much of a myth as the wage gap. They don't even have access to the color of your car to begin with.
>>17359367
See >>17359355, the difference is that having kids is a pretty fucking vital part of society. I am not saying that there is no reason to deem a woman who might have kids a less desirable employee, I am saying that as a system continually doing so is shooting yourself in the foot because you don't actually want smart, educated women to have less or no children. Hell, you don't even want them to wait until they are older, with all the associated risks. And the women who have a shot at a serious career are the ones most likely to delay or reconsider their child wish in favor of their career.
That and the original question wasn't whether it was unfair that women face this difficulty, ultimately it all traces back to biology, but how it was different from a man having to "choose" between a career and a family.
I know a ton of conservative women, but they're all die-hard Christians. If you're not also Christian, you're not allowed in their club. You may be worth a fuck or two if you're hot, which the Christian women will then deny ever happening because muh sexual purity, but you certainly won't be long-term dating material.
I'm a woman, btw, so this is coming straight from the observations of women by a woman.
>>17359380
>You may be worth a fuck or two if you're hot, which the Christian women will then deny ever happening because muh sexual purity
That doesnt actually sound very conservative.
>>17359351
We'll figure out flash cloning, one day.
>>17359376
>They don't even have access to the color of your car to begin with.
are you sure about that, I've heard that from a bunch of people
>>17359376
If you are working some high stressed, constantly evolving workfield, then yes taking a year off (not that most women actually do this, American women tend to pride themselves on working until due date - which is not even healthy for both mother and child - and then get three months off) would be a disaster. If you work a simple desk job, it would probably take at most a week to catch up with any potential changes, let's be real. Most jobs aren't rocket science.
Besides, if you let them go in favor of a new employee, that employee themselves will have more recent but not longer experience. It's not like the choice is between a woman who missed a few months and someone who has all her experience plus those months.
>>17359376
the entire republican field was extremely unimpressive but I do think Jeb had a better chance of winning a general election than Trump.
>>17359382
>That doesnt actually sound very conservative.
Sexual purity is a lie. It's a scam. It's repression, denial, and self-hatred all rolled into one. Most people sleep around. Almost everyone masturbates. Conservative women just lie about it, to themselves and to others, because they feel it is immoral.
>>17359382
>sexual purity doesn't sound conservative
Are you high?
Don't be ashamed of your views OP, if bitches can't deal then kick them to the gutter where they belong.
Also don't expect women to be loyal to your cause, they aren't the fighters and protectors.
>>17359389
and quite frankly they shouldn't even be able to vote.
>>17359396
There are a lot of people who have a model of reality so pitifully malformed, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Male and female.
From your statement you're among them. Barring all women is not an effective heuristic beyond that you're eliminating ~45% of the voting population, and assuming this nets out positively.
>>17359383
The VIN gives only the model, make, year, and location of production. Not it's color. Granted custom paint jobs may be a factor, but that's different from a stock paint job. We were also raised being told eating before swimming will make you cramp.
>>17359384
>If you work a simple desk job, it would probably take at most a week to catch up with any potential changes, let's be real. Most jobs aren't rocket science.
I mean sure, if you're nothing more than a secretary or whatever it's not a big deal. I'm talking about career women that are doing something more substantial than that.
>Besides, if you let them go in favor of a new employee, that employee themselves will have more recent but not longer experience.
Industry knowledge doesn't go away when you change companies. In most industries there are more people seeking work, than work available. However small you want to argue the difference is, her market value never increases if not decrease relative to her peers at the time.
Besides, if the impact is so small as you claim it should be no significant barrier once she attempts to reenter the work force.
>>17359388
No, but it sounds like you're a touch slow. To be conservative means you actually believe in conservative values and follow them for their own merit. Otherwise you're just succumbing to peer pressure, and would act differently once it went away.
>>17359401
If you're behind, you're behind, that's life. Ideally I would like to see companies invest extra in highly successful female employees who take maternity leave (like arranging for them to get some high intensity training for a short period after their return) to avoid especially those women with the IQ, ambition etc to get their in the first place, opting out of children because they value their career too much to put it at stake.
But I recognize that this is likely not going to happen, and if it doesn't then that's it, you'll have to struggle to compensate or even get the chance to compensate. These are not the majority of the jobs, it is just a shame that especially those women are indirectly discouraged from spreading their genes (and likely have prolific men as well, given women's lack of down dating).
The issue is that even when the time you were out is not substantial for your work and this is recognized by your employer (and yeah industry knowledge remains, but especially if you work a lot in teams or with customers there's always an element of adjusting to the specific company), they will still disadvantage you as an employee because you are more likely to cut back on hours or take the sick days.
So then we're back to that being an all around fair assumption. But at the end of the day, something's gotta give. As it is, mothers get punished for often taking the brunt of the responsibility for raising the children. Meanwhile, the male employees have just as much at stake when it comes to their children being raised well, and society has potentially the most at stake for wanting generations of healthy children who grew up in a stable home environment (aka, not surrounded by constantly changing nannies, or put in daycare all day every day). Yet the system is acting like this is strictly a women's issue that companies don't have to show flexibility towards. That is skewed.
>>17359412
>get their in the first place
*there
And honestly my "solution" would be to subsidize and at least partially financially compensate firms who lost a female employee to motherhood, so that it becomes easier for them to take that risk. Then again I'm a filthy mainland European so probably already half a communist.
