Riding the fence on abortion

So many try to ride the fence on the issue. 

No doubt, it’s a controversial issue. One which will inevitably draw some hostile reactions discussed between two people on opposing sides.  Many try to appear neutral with claims, ‘While I would never have an abortion I would support a woman’s right to have one.’ 

Yet, without realizing it, they’re supporting pro-choice completely

riding2bthe2bfence

Consider a man stating, ‘I do not support rape.

Well, that’s certainly noble. Plus, it should just be common practice not to force women into unwanted sex. However, what if he added, ‘… however, I’d support someone’s preference to rape.’ 

Now, does that the man noble for his stance of not raping women? 

No. Who would look at that man and say, well he’s neutral on the issue? He certainly is NOT neutral on the issue. Nor should he be patted on the back for NOT raping women. 

Therefore the same holds true for men and women who choose to take a so-called neutral position. They’re, in fact, supporting abortion while trying to be perceived as one who’s above getting it yet humble enough to support it. 

If you support any form of choice, you’re pro-choice. Yet, if you’d never do it, then perhaps you need to ask yourself why and consider which side of the fence you’re really on.  

 

 

Advertisements

Using the minority to justify the majority

“But what about cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s life in danger?’

Those are certainly strong reasons used to support abortion. However, they do not represent the majority. Abortion supporters would never agree to distinguish abortion for a minor reason. Yet, that is exactly the tactic liberals use to push their agenda.  


What about the risk to the woman’s life during or following an abortion? 

In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 4 women died as a result of an induced abortion.

Aspiration-Abortion

And, between 1973 – 2012, 431 reported cases of female deaths as a result of complications from an abortion procedure. 

Is this knowledge enough to convince leaders to completely abolish abortion? Or, at the very least, enough to get stricter laws passed through Congress? Certainly not. It would be easy to show over 99% of abortions do not result in the death of the woman having it. 

If a pro-life advocate attempted to argue against abortion using the very minute statistic,  abortion supporters would be quick to make the argument, ‘abortion should not be eliminated based on cases which account for less than 1%.’ 

And, they would be correct.

Yet, when it comes to supporting abortion, it is the very tactic liberals use to justify abortion. 


Pro-choice advocates use small percentages to justify the whole

With that said, we turn to the primary reason for abortions. 

According to the CDC, the highest number of abortions result from a woman claiming …

  1. She’s not ready to be a mother
  2. She can’t afford to raise a baby
  3.  She’s done having children
  4. She’s too young
  5. It would interfere with education and career

When you combine all these excuses together, it accounts for over 85% cases. 

And, 6% of abortions which fall under the category of “OTHER“. 

PPH

The majority of women who get abortions are doing it for selfish reasons. Not because of any physical violation or medical reason. 

When defending reasons to keep abortion legal, however, pro-choice activists generally default to the cases of rape, incest and mother’s life in danger (notice pro-choice activists use the word ‘mother‘). 

When you take those instances into account, they add up to 7.5% of abortions performed. 

So, while pro-life advocates certainly would have a hard time defending their stance to completely eliminate abortion using a stat which shows less than 1% of women die from abortion procedures, pro-choice activists use the minority reasons for abortion to justify the majority of cases. 

What we can safely conclude, the minority of cases do not justify the majority of reasons to keep abortion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parents Passing The Buck of Responsibility

Apple Instructed To Get Kids Off Technology

Apple shareholders have asked technology giant Apple Incorporated to come up with initiatives to ween kids off cell phones and tablets.

Two shareholders who made the request say, “the company should do more to help parents protect their kids from the risks of digital addiction and the side effects of social media.”

Yet, why how is it Apple’s job to fix this?

Apple, Inc. created a popular product consumers want. A product which provides users with unlimited technological capabilities. Phones and tablets purchased for children – by their parents or guardians – which kids use primarily to watch videos, play games, update social media statuses and posts, and text their friends.

Unless Americans are OK with Apple invading their privacy and monitoring their children, the change will have to lie in the hands of their parents or guardians.  If their parents are so lazy, not to monitor and minimize their child’s expose to screens, then the parents are to blame, not Apple.


McDonald’s Made Me Fat

We see the same thought process with America’s fast-food giant McDonald’s.

Back to 2002, two teen girls in New York sued McDonald’s for their weight gain. Yet,  admitted to eating at McDonald’s several times a week for years.

The lead attorney for the case claimed McDonald’s lured kids into their establishments with Happy Meals and toys. Stating, “… it’s hard to argue that a 6, or 8 or 10-year-old child has to take full responsibility for their decisions when they’re lured into McDonald’s by the toys and the playground and happy meals and the birthday parties.”

Lure? McDonald’s is not the neighborhood pedophile, luring children inside to carry out their own evil desires, leaving kids scarred for life. No one is lured. Enticed? Maybe. The fast-food chain – like any other restaurant around the world – use gimmicks to draw customers. This is not a secret. If McDonald’s had promoted their food helps customers ‘lose weight’, THEN they would have had a case.

No one forced the girls to choose McDonald’s to eat. It was a choice they made.

While their attorney also argued McDonald’s did not provide his teenage clients with nutritional information (as if they would have read it), it was certainly no secret then or now McDonald’s is not in the business of healthy eating.

The lawsuit was eventually dismissed. So, who are these girl’s guardians? We know who isn’t .. McDonald’s staff or executives.


Cigarettes Lead To Cancer – Shocker

Is anyone unaware cigarettes cause health issues?

In addition to a raspy voice, yellow-tinted skin, wrinkles around the lips, and the atrocious breath many try covering up with gum (which doesn’t work), cigarettes will eventually cause cancer.

Even with the Surgeon General’s warning plastered on each pack, people still love to speed up their heart rate, psychologically believing cigarettes help bring them a sense of calmness. Yet, the calmness comes because of the addiction which needs to be fed, it does not alleviate the stress they’re dealing with.

Here’s what EVERYONE knows, there are no health benefits to smoking. We’ve known this for decades. Nothing in this section offers any new revelations.

While legal to do, it’s a consumer’s choice to smoke (Similar to parachuting from a plane, there’s a chance your chute could malfunction. That is why you are told about the risks ahead of time and, likely, forced to sign a waiver in case the unthinkable happens).

In 2014, a woman sued the tobacco company for her husband’s death from lung cancer and awarded $23.6 billion. It is certainly a sad case. A woman losing her husband to cancer. However, the question remains, why didn’t he stop knowing the potential health risks? In 2014, it was common knowledge cigarettes caused cancer. 

Should cigarettes be banned in the United States? Short answer, yes. They offer no health benefits, cause cancer, and linked to thousands of deaths each year.

Again, who’s to blame for health issues related to smoking? ANSWER: The person who chose to start and continued to purchase cigarettes throughout their lifetime. 


Now, the Government Needs to Fix

School Shootings

Today, the hot-button issue – gun-control.

Liberals demand Congress fix school shootings through the incorporation of stricter laws.

 

The Columbine massacre gave disgruntled students an idea how to get revenge in an epic way. Many teens who carry out these violent acts are on a suicide mission. Yet, instead of just killing themselves, and going down with the ship alone (due to excessive bullying and home issues), they want to take a few down with them?

The shooter, consumed by anger, cannot rationalize the pain others will suffer. They only smile, knowing they got their ultimate revenge.

While guns can be restricted, it will not solve shootings or acts of violence in schools.

The issues surrounding the Parkland, Florida shooting include:

• Bullying
• Lack of parental involvement
• Law enforcement lack of response

Bullying

One of the student celebrities who found national fame following the Parkland shooting, Emma Gonzalez, admitted to the nation Cruz was bullied.

During her first speech on February 17, three days following the shooting Gonzalez said, “Since he (Cruz) was in middle school, it was no surprise to anyone who knew him to hear that ‘HE’ was the shooter. Those talking about how we should not have ostracized him, YOU DIDN’T KNOW THIS KID!” (It can be heard at 2:04 in the video).

Lack of Parental Involvement

Cruz had no father and his mother died in November 2017.

Mothers play a huge part in their child’s development. Yet, statistics do not lie, when fathers are not present, kids suffer.

Law Enforcement Mishaps

The FBI admitted their lack of response to threats made by Nicholas Cruz.

On February 14, 2018, poor choices were made which killed 17 innocent people.

Choices which included:

• Nicholas Cruz shooting innocent people
• The former resource officer’s decision not to enter the building
• The FBI’s choice not to follow up on social media threats

The NRA is not responsible for the poor choices made.

We need to stop believing the government and law enforcement have the power to protect us 100% of the time. Laws are in place to let criminals know the consequences if they should break them. While there are a number of illegal drugs sold on the street, those caught face consequences. The government nor law enforcement will be able to 100% stop drug dealing.

There is a reality many Democrats and liberal supporters prefer not to accept. They are:

1. School shootings will happen without or without stricter gun laws

2. If no one on a school campus is prepared with a weapon, the shooter will carry out a massacre. If teachers are not going to be armed, if there are no armed resource officers, then the shooter will carry out their plan to kill innocent lives.

With no resistance, no one shooting back, students and staff will be sitting ducks.

3. Each school needs to consider a resource officer or two with the necessary training and armed to handle a school shooter.

The recent shooting in Maryland demonstrated to the nation how arming a resource officer can stop or minimize casualties. First, the resource officer fired on the 17-year-old shooter, which shifted the shooter’s attention from killing students, instead toward the resource officer. After an exchange of rounds, the shooter was killed.

The resource officer likely saved a number of students who would have been shot and killed otherwise.


Teach Children How The World Works

The culture is trying to shift blame and responsibility to huge corporations and state and federal government.

Yet, the changes the culture needs are within their power.

 

Not demanding changes through protesting. Adults can handle what is within their power at home and in their communities.

Parents are responsible for their children. If they do not want their kids in front of screens, they – not Apple – need to take them away. If they do not want them to get obese and deal with health issues, they should not take them to McDonald’s two or three times a week and educate them on the dangers of cigarettes. And, the more involved parents are with their children, the more their kids will rely on them for support, looking to them for understanding versus taking it out on a world which they do not understand.

Walkout Sends Different Messages

NATIONWIDE – Not all students marched on March 14tth

Some faced disciplinary action over refusal to take part or expressing opposing viewpoints.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, students given 17 minutes to protest gun violence did the unthinkable, essentially disgracing the event.  

While some stood up for their convictions, others used it as an opportunity to contradict the purpose of the march. 


NOT MARCHING

HILLARD, OH He wanted to stay ‘apolitical‘ during the walkout.

He had two choices:

  1.  Join the walkout
  2.  Sit in the common’s area of the school

According to the Ohio student, the walkout conflicted with his views and felt by sitting in the common’s area, it would disrespect those killed in Parkland, Florida.

Therefore, he elected to remain in his classroom doing homework. Afterward, the principal had word with him.  [STORY]

 


  OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

 

NEW PRAGUE, MN “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

That was the sign one student held up during his school’s walkout. Yet, the principal wasn’t havin’ it.

His reaction – caught on video – angered many parents.  [STORY]


 TEACHER SENT HOME FOR DIALOG OVER POLITICAL PROTESTS

ROCKLIN, CA  A history teacher was sent home for questioning the politics of the walkout. 

She attempted to open a dialog with students focused on whether it was appropriate for any school to support gun violence protests if they didn’t support other types of protests. 

According to her, the students engaged in a good discussion. However, school officials say they heard differently and placed her on administrative leave.  [STORY]


TRASH WAL-MART DURING PROTEST

CHICAGO, IL – Students from Simeon Career Academy were given 17 minutes to take part in the National School Walkout. 

However, instead of honoring the students who lost their lives in Florida, they chose to trash the local Wal-Mart instead. [STORY]

 

 

Freedom to Refuse Service

A Christian bakery fined for not making a cake.

Yet, coffee shops allowed to deny service to whomever they choose. 
Equality is supposed to be across the board.
It’s clear, many liberal judges cherry-pick causes. 
In 2015, while campaigning for the presidency, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz explained why businesses shouldn’t be forced to bend on their beliefs. 


Refusal to make cake for lesbian couple –

FINED

Christian bakers

GRESHAM, OR Owners of a mom and pop shop ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple for “damages” and “emotional suffering“. [STORY]


Coffee shop refuses to serve police –

NO FINE 


OAKLAND, CA – Coffee shop refuses to serve police officers citing concerns over their “physical and emotional safety”. [STORY]


 Kicking out pro-life supporters –

NO FINE

SEATTLE, WA – A smug, gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out of his establishment for discussing anti-abortion issues. Says he had “the right to be offended“. [STORY]

[WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE]


Cruz says businesses should not

bend on beliefs

In 2015, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz was approached by Hollywood actress Ellen Page.
Page confronted Cruz on the persecution of homosexuals.
Cruz delivered a perfect response on who faces persecution and how all businesses should not be forced to bend on their convictions and beliefs.

Top News Stories – 3/15/18


PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE COLLAPSE

MIAMI, FL – Several killed in pedestrian bridge collapse.
Happened near Florida International University.
The bridge considered the “first of its kind” by FIU officials.
Was put in place on March 10th.
Used “accelerated bridge construction methods“.


THREATS AND SUSPENSIONS

NATIONWIDE – Not all students were allowed to march yesterday.
Some received suspensions.
Others denied the right to express opposing views.


TEACHER POSTS SALARY

PHEONIX, AR – A second-grade teacher posts her salary online.
Claims without her spouse she couldn’t make it financially.


TOYS ‘R’ US CLOSING

NATIONWIDE – Iconic toy store, Toys R Us is set to sell their U.S. stores.
Approximately 30,000 will lose their job.


DOLLAR MENU NEWS

Articles which are quick, pointless, and generally offer no educational value.

 


 

Top News Stories to Check Out – 3/15/2018


REFUSED TO MARCH

NATIONWIDE – Today, students marched for stricter gun laws.
Yet, not all students, and for good reasons.


PRESIDENTIAL THANK YOU

MISSOURI – President Trump arrived in St. Louis this morning.
Hinted more to come with tax plan.


MORE EXCUSES

INDIA – Hillary Clinton explains her 2016 presidential loss.
Claims Trump took American backward.
Plus says smart voters chose her, racists preferred Trump.

 


DOUCHE BAG AWARD

TEXAS – Minor league baseball player caught hitting girlfriend.
WARNING: Some may find the video to be disturbing.

 


DOLLAR MENU NEWS

Articles which are quick, pointless, and generally offer no educational value.


 

 

 

Matthew Cassady – Facebook’s ‘Trigger Specialists’ Targeting Conservatives

Like some of you, I’ve been to Facebook jail. 

Not just once, but three times (yeah, it changes a man). 

My mug shot (profile pic) is likely displayed on a bulletin board entitled, “Top 1000 Triggering Conservatives” (which in my opinion is a huge honor). I also imagine my account is on some ridiculous watchlist, assigned to an erratic, self-identified non-binary liberal with a chip on their shoulder and a stick up their … well, you know … just ready to pull the plug on my account. 

I’ve experienced what it’s like to be an innocent victim of Facebook’s Subjective Court of Personal Opinion they cleverly disguise as their biased Policies and Guidelines

For my first offense, I was jailed for 24 hours. My next, a solid week. Then for my third, a 30-day sentence! 

During my incarceration, I was cut off from liking posts, sharing pictures, or making comments because Facebook decided to be obtuse. When I wrote them proclaiming my rights were violated, nothing but silence. I’m surprised the Facebook warden, Mark Zuckerburg, didn’t give me another 30 days to remind me who’s boss

Andy in the Hole

It’s amazing how they can find random posts which offend them yet can’t respond to your complaint.

However, it’s great to have the freedom to once again click the LIKE button, share content, and make comments without an authoritarian popup constantly reminding me of made-up past crimes I’ve committed against Facebook’s liberal ideology. 

What’s even funnier, Facebook sent me multiple emails of notifications waiting for me on my personal page which – because of my suspension – I couldn’t access. It was almost as if Facebook was taunting me. 

“Hey Matt, you have a lot of messages waiting for you … oh wait … we suspended your account. Nevermind!”  

Then they just repeated the same cycle each week. 


The Facebook / Lerner Commonality

History is repeating itself. 

Facebook is the modern-day Lois Lerner, the former IRS official accused of targeting conservative groups, denying many of a tax-exempt status. Similar to Learner, Facebook seems to think they can subtly discriminate against conservatives without being noticed. Well, WE NOTICE! 

Now Facebook is taking a page out of Lerner’s playbook, disguising their ‘policies and procedures‘ as a way to silence Republicans. If anyone were to actually investigate the ethical behavior of Facebook officials, it’s likely they’d be called out for discrimination against conservatives and Christians. 

Case in point …


Liberal Definition of Hate Speech

The issue I was suspended over – three times – was the topic of whether transgender was biological or a mental disorder. 

You can likely guess which side I took.

During debates on Facebook, I stated my case, made valid points, cited relevant references, and provided stats. I never made comments which implied anyone should be killed or physically abused. I’d suggest those struggling with confusion get help. To no surprise, the Left deemed that as offensive. I knew they would yet I never wished harm on anyone, even transgenders. 

Hate speech to liberals is anything which contradicts their beliefs. However, true hate speech is wishing harm or death to specific groups or races. 

In fact, during some of the debates I’ve had, some liberals went onto my personal page, sent me a friend request, wrote some of the most awful things you can imagine, as some even took shots at my children. Then, in typical liberal fashion, they would block me so I couldn’t respond. I was told to ‘go kill myself’ and a couple of “open-minded” Lefties went as far as calling my children a ‘couple of faggots’ (which is odd since the liberal agenda supports the LBTG and that term is generally used in a derogatory manner of homosexuals). 

And, according to a former Facebook employee, even conservative news stories have been targeted.

Following my second suspension – which lasted a week – I reported some Facebook users whom I felt were offensive. People who said much nastier things than I ever posted. I would get an automated message suggesting I block them if I found them to be offensive. Basically, Facebook wouldn’t get involved. Yet, if I say I believe transgenders suffer from a mental disorder, back it up with solid evidence, and suggest they get help, I’m the enemy of the social media liberal platform known as Facebook.

If you’re told Facebook is unbias, don’t believe the hype … or especially Zuckerburg.


Cruz Calls Out Zuckerburg

When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg had to testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. he was also faced with questions regarding content which was banned and fell under the category of “Unsafe to the community”

The CEO bounced around the question trying to appear like the good guy stating he was in favor of deleting sites which promoted terrorism. 

Yet, Cruz stayed the course citing numerous of examples of conservatives sites which have been deleted. 

What’s also interesting to note, the number of “content monitors” reviewing postings and deciding who should be sent to Facebook jail. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Cassady – Equality or Superiority ?

The modern-day feminist not only demands equality, they’re trying to redefine it. 

Equality is where everyone begins at the same starting point; given more or less based on achievements and hard work.  

Yet, that’s not the correct definition for many of today’s liberated women. In fact, it’s not about equality at all. It’s about superiority.

While the United States offers women more opportunities to succeed than any other nation on the planet (the very reason foreigners flock to America), they neglect to consider where women are granted more priveledges over men. 

Privileges which …

  • Financially enslave men, 
  • Put men’s lives on the line, and …
  • Place men in jail without due process. 

It’s not likely today’s feminist would willingly give up any of those advantages for true equality across the board. Yet, there are many instances in American culture where women have the upper hand. 


Women Can Choose Parenthood

When a woman gets pregnant she has three options:

  1. Legally murder her child: abortion. 
  2. Choose not to list the father of the child on the birth certificate and give the child up for adoption. 
  3. Surrender the baby to a safe haven location. 

However, if the woman chooses to have the child (the right thing to do), she can demand financial assistance from the father. 

Consider the double standard.

If a woman doesn’t feel ready to be a mother, she can legally end her child’s life. She’s applauded for her decision by those on the Left. Yet, if a man doesn’t feel ready to be a dad, he’s told, “You should’ve thought about that before you had sex.”  If this is a true statement, why does a woman have the option and a man does not?

The argument, likely, is she’s the one who has to carry the child. However, why does that excuse her from the responsibility of raising the child? The same responsibility forced on men?

Should a man also have the choice not to be a dad? This is not a noble act by any means. Real men would handle their responsibility, not push to have their child murdered so they could selfishly live a life free from responsibility. Yet, if we’re just talking about legal rights, this is not fair for men. 

Plus, in American society, if a woman chooses to abort her child or give it up for adoption, she’s considered (by the Left) to be empowered. Exercising her right to choose. Yet, if a man prefers not to be a parent, recommends his partner gets an abortion, he’s classified as a douche bag. 

So, a woman can have a child legally murder her child and hailed a hero. A man can abandon the child and be hailed a deadbeat.


Women Don’t Have To Agree to Die for their County

When a woman reaches the age of 18 she’s not required to sign a Selective Service card

When a young man turns 18, he’s obligated to sign one.

If he doesn’t, in some cases, he may not be able to get a driver’s license, take advantage of state or federal programs, or college financial aid. Women, however, have access to all those things without signing the card. 

Plus, they can vote for a politician who would send men to war. 

If the draft should ever be initiated again, women will be safe from serving in the military. However, men will be obligated to serve should the U.S. government require it.


By Default, Women are Granted More Custody in Divorce

Many believe the court system is fairer in divorces when it comes to custody. 

That’s not an accurate statement. 

Of course, each custody battle is determined on a case-by-case basis.

However, it’s more common for women to get the majority of custody and force the ex-husband to pay. If a father wants equal parenting responsibilities, he has to prove he’s worthy to have it, which is very expensive. 

While men are just as capable of raising kids, by default women automatically get the title of ‘primary caregiver’. 

Plus, the question comes up, why does the man have to get less custody and pay child support if the woman chooses to leave him (excluding cases of physical assault). 

Women can choose to end a marriage and even go on to have affairs and their ex-husband is forced to provide financial support and granted less time with his kids. In retrospect, he basically pays his ex-wife to be a part-time mom; giving her every other weekend off and the occasional overnight stay with dad. 

Not uncommon to hear women complain about the less than adequate monthly payment they receive which barely covers all the child’s necessities. Why didn’t they consider that issue before choosing to file for divorce? And, why did she not have a game plan as far as a job? She cannot expect to be a stay-at-home mom, financially supported by her ex-husband, while she dates other men, and demand to be treated equally. 


Men Pay More for Insurance

The scale is unbalanced when it comes to insurance premiums.

Women tend to get lower premiums than men do.

If a man has a spotless accident record, he’ll still be charged more for car insurance than a woman with a spotless record. One of the reasons being, men statistically are more daring behind the wheel during their youth.

Yet, if feminist desire equality, shouldn’t they demand the field be leveled?

Men have a strike against them simply for being men. If true gender equality is the ultimate goal of today’s feminist, shouldn’t they be fighting with lawmakers to ensure everyone begins with the same rate?

Only those who choose to drive recklessly and acquire speeding tickets would receive higher premiums. Regardless of gender, everyone is granted the same luxury rates as well as the same increases based on driving performance. 

When it comes to health insurance – again – men are charged more. 

Healthcare companies justify this based on research which indicates men – in general – dies sooner.  And, since men are predicted to die sooner, health care providers know they’re more likely to pay out a claim. Yet, if the wife should die before her husband, does he get the same amount paid out to him? Not likely. 

This is a case of a few good students getting punished for the other bad student’s behavior. 


Sexual Assault Accusations

Women can cry ‘rape‘ and immediately the Court of Public Opinion will side with them. 

We’re not living in an age of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ It’s the other way around; ‘Guilty until proven innocent’.

Even if a man’s found innocent, the accusation will follow him for years.

People left to wonder, was he really innocent? Or, was the victim pushed into dropping the case? Yet, if a man is truly innocent, and his female accuser sticks to her story, the accused will have to fight hard in court, spend a lot on an attorney, and even serve jail time while his court case is pending. 

If a man were to accuse a woman of sexual harassment, she would likely get a slap on the wrist. In the age of #MeToo, men have become an enemy.

Today accusations come out of nowhere when a woman stands to benefit from it.

This is not indicating a woman’s accusations and experiences – if she was sexually assaulted – are irrelevant. No one disagrees, if a man is guilty he should face the consequences. The point being made, today there are more accusations coming out of the woodwork. Like the ones which surfaced during Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency. The public was not aware of any majority sexual harassment actions on the President’s part until he declared he was running for president.   


Picking from a Smorgasbord 

Five areas where women have the advantage and not likely to give up anytime soon. 

(WARNING: The following video contains explicit language.)

Feminists seem to pick and choose which parts of the supposed ‘male privilege’ they like,  discarding the less appealing aspects of masculinity like paying for meals on dates, working blue collar jobs, or playing the part of protector. 

For example, when a crisis happens, is it still ‘women and children first’ or ‘children and everyone for themselves’? If a group of men and women should ever find themselves on a sinking Titanic it’s likely even the most hardcore feminist will play the ‘… but I’m just weak woman needing rescued’. 

Survey Indicates Attraractive People Are Republican

The more attractive you are, the more likely you’re to be a Republican.

You may assume that statement is just one bias writer’s opinion. It’s not. In fact, it’s a conclusion reached in a survey published in the Journal of Public Economics in December 2017.

The research was led by Rolfe Daus Peterson from Susquehanna University and Carl Palmer from Illinois State University. The duo compared data from 1972, 1974 and 1976 American National Study surveys which asked people to evaluate the appearance of others. The survey also explored participants’ political beliefs, income, race, gender, and education.

The results were compared with the Wisconsin Longitudinal study which also focused on physical characteristics of more than 10,000 high school students rated by their level of attractiveness.

The findings revealed the level of attractiveness tends alters an individual’s worldview and political beliefs.


Perception of Attractive People

It’s no secret attractive people tend to receive preferential treatment.

Survey findings reveal good-looking people are generally attributed with a number of positive traits including …

  • Elevated social status
  • Higher income
  • Perceived to be intelligent, competent, confident, and happier

As a result of preferential treatment, attractive people see the world as a just and fair place.

Yet, attractive people are considered to have a political ‘blind spot. 

Their ‘political blind spot’ implies they don’t see the need for government aid in society because they are less likely to need it. According to the initial results, attractive people are less likely to understand or relate to the hardships faced by others – making them more likely to embrace the idea of individualism.

It’s not likely they will ever feel part of a persecuted minority.


Unhappiness Within One’s Self

Findings also revealed those who are unhappy with themselves tend to be drawn to left-wing causes.

As the old saying goes, “Misery loves company”. People with low self-esteem and struggle with body image want others to face the same struggles and challenges they do.

Instead of taking responsibility for their weight and appearance and changing their eating habits and clothing choices, they prefer to blame the world for unrealistic beauty standards. They view standards in society as a personal attack on them.

They draw closer to others who share their misery. Instead of taking responsibility and making changes, they choose the victimhood mentality.


Keepin’ it in Perspective

As both researchers would attest, their latest findings do not mean all attractive people are conservative and less attractive people are liberal.

The results imply more attractive people tend to lean more towards conservatism as a result of preferential treatment which skews their worldview, believing the playing field is leveled. Those who are not granted preferential treatment tend to view society as an enemy constantly working to suppress them.

Therefore, while Republicans prefer less government and allow people to manage their own lives, Democrats prefer government give them a leg up in life with services and financial assistance to support the victimhood many believe they face. As Republicans support the capitalism, liberal groups push for more for socialism.

In fact, a different study supports the claim weaker men tend to be drawn to socialism.