WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

This woman ticks almost all of the boxes which would fit her into my spectrum of who I'd want to hopefully settle down with. She wants at least three kids, is White, intelligent and intellectually stimulating, class act, doesn't take bullshit, definitely isn't a hoe, independent and we just generally get along. She's shown signs of liberal/woke behavior like "love is love" shit and "be whoever you want to be" kind of thought process but no reeeeeing or cunty behavior in that way and honestly most women are liberal minded to some degree so fuck it, life's short, good girls are hard to find, so take what you can eh?

Last night we were out and got onto the topic of differences between men and women because she started talking about this being a "Man's world", so, being inquisitive and open to debate, I went on talking about why this is a "Man's world", using biology as my main argument and that the bottom line is that men are just physically stronger than women for "x" reason and mammals, in general, have a patriarchal hierarchy because nature and such.

It was a long debate, I won't bore you with details, but if she was any dimmer or disliked me more then it probably would have ended in tears because her liberal logic doesn't quite accept reality or biology as a foundation for "social injustice", instead believing that the world is the way it is because it has been taught that men are more powerful than women, and therefore we live in Man's world through nurture rather than nature. She believes wholeheartedly that the world is only the way it is because men (who are at the forefront of science) have molded it to suit themselves and give them the upper hand in society.

I quite easily dismantled her reasoning because it's blatantly stupid woke liberal nonsense, in effect upsetting her but forcing her to admit that she is idealistic. She genuinely said to me that she believes the things she does because she is idealistic. She wants to believe in a world where women and men are equal, through and through, and therefore does not want to hear and/or accept the alternative regardless of how much it makes sense or is in fact easily provable that men are physically stronger than women.

So now I feel as though I'm between a rock and a hard place, because she's obviously indoctrinated and has jew brain rot in her but she's also a good person and mate for a lot of other reasons. Hell, the fact that we even had the debate in calm and openly is outstanding and shows she's capable of conversation, but I don't actually think she's going to shift that much on these views which will only bleed into our children if ever the day came.

Anyway there we go, to be with her or not, that is the question.

This woman ticks almost all of the boxes which would fit her into my spectrum of who I'd want to hopefully settle down with. She wants at least three kids, is White, intelligent and intellectually stimulating, class act, doesn't take bullshit, definitely isn't a hoe, independent and we just generally get along. She's shown signs of liberal/woke behavior like "love is love" shit and "be whoever you want to be" kind of thought process but no reeeeeing or cunty behavior in that way and honestly most women are liberal minded to some degree so fuck it, life's short, good girls are hard to find, so take what you can eh? Last night we were out and got onto the topic of differences between men and women because she started talking about this being a "Man's world", so, being inquisitive and open to debate, I went on talking about *why* this is a "Man's world", using biology as my main argument and that the bottom line is that men are just physically stronger than women for "x" reason and mammals, in general, have a patriarchal hierarchy because nature and such. It was a long debate, I won't bore you with details, but if she was any dimmer or disliked me more then it probably would have ended in tears because her liberal logic doesn't quite accept reality or biology as a foundation for "social injustice", instead believing that the world is the way it is because it has been taught that men are more powerful than women, and therefore we live in Man's world through nurture rather than nature. She believes wholeheartedly that the world is only the way it is because men (who are at the forefront of science) have molded it to suit themselves and give them the upper hand in society. I quite easily dismantled her reasoning because it's blatantly stupid woke liberal nonsense, in effect upsetting her but forcing her to admit that she is idealistic. She genuinely said to me that she believes the things she does because she is idealistic. She wants to believe in a world where women and men are equal, through and through, and therefore does not want to hear and/or accept the alternative regardless of how much it makes sense or is in fact easily provable that men are physically stronger than women. So now I feel as though I'm between a rock and a hard place, because she's obviously indoctrinated and has jew brain rot in her but she's also a good person and mate for a lot of other reasons. Hell, the fact that we even had the debate in calm and openly is outstanding and shows she's capable of conversation, but I don't actually think she's going to shift that much on these views which will only bleed into our children if ever the day came. Anyway there we go, to be with her or not, that is the question.

(post is archived)

[–] 4 pts

"The slogan ’emancipation of women’ was invented by Jewish intellectuals, and its content was formed by the same spirit. In the really good times of German life, the German woman had no need to emancipate herself. She possessed exactly what nature had given her to administer and preserve; just as the man in his good times had no need to fear that he would be ousted from his position in relation to the woman.

If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? How could the greater world survive if there were no one to make the cares of the smaller world the content of their lives?

No, the greater world is built on the foundation of this smaller world. This great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. Providence has entrusted to the woman the cares of that world which is her very own, and only on the basis of this smaller world can the man’s world be formed and built up. The two worlds are not antagonistic. They complement each other, they belong together just as man and woman belong together.

We do not consider it correct for the woman to interfere in the world of the man, in his main sphere. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct. To the one belongs the strength of feeling, the strength of the soul. To the other belongs the strength of vision, of toughness, of decision, and of the willingness to act. In the one case this strength demands the willingness of the woman to risk her life to preserve this important cell and to multiply it, and in the other case it demands from the man the readiness to safeguard life.

The sacrifices which the man makes in the struggle of his nation, the woman makes in the preservation of that nation in individual cases. What the man gives in courage on the battlefield, the woman gives in eternal self-sacrifice, in eternal pain and suffering. Every child that a woman brings into the world is a battle, a battle waged for the existence of her people. And both must therefore mutually value and respect each other when they see that each performs the task that Nature and Providence have ordained. And this mutual respect will necessarily result from this separation of the functions of each.

It is not true, as Jewish intellectuals assert, that respect depends on the overlapping of the spheres of activity of the sexes; this respect demands that neither sex should try to do that which belongs to the sphere of the other. It lies in the last resort in the fact that each knows that the other is doing everything necessary to maintain the whole community. So our women’s movement is for us not something which inscribes on its banner as its program the fight against men, but something which has as its program the common fight together with men. For the new National Socialist national community acquires a firm basis, precisely because we have gained the trust of millions of women as fanatical comrades…

Whereas previously the programs of the liberal, intellectualist women’s movements contained many points, the program of our National Socialist women’s movement has but one single point, and that point is the child, that tiny creature which must be born and grow strong and which alone gives meaning to the whole life-struggle.”

[–] 1 pt

This guy needs to come back into power please