Take a look at Europe's 'Defense Ministers' (pic) - LOL

[The Sausage King]

Now, let's look at who's now in charge as our Secretary of Defense.

I can't believe Europe has put it's safety in the hands of free-spirited progressive ladies who have no idea how to defend or grow a nation's strength. Thankfully, the people of US woke up to the insanity of political correctness and got Trump, who in turn put our nation in the hands of Mad Dog.

 

[Teppodama]

I don't know about all that. Women can be downright ruthless compared to most men. With a few notable exceptions, most men will just kill you if they need revenge or to stop you. Women on the other hand will cut you a thousand times, dump you in lye, let you stew for a bit, then put a bullet in your dome.

 

[Orgasmo]

Why does the Norway one look like a dyke? I wouldn't be surprised if she is.

 

[Teppodama]

Why does the Norway one look like a dyke? I wouldn't be surprised if she is.

May not be a lady. Could just be an effeminate ugly dude.

 

[ehtheist]

I know what the message is trying to say but, frankly, them being women really doesn't mean they can't be damned good in the capacity of minister of defense. Maybe we should do what is so often asked of feminists looking to appoint people because of their sex and look at their credentials rather than just judging them based on their sex?...

Does the OP have information on the qualifications/careers of any of these women prior to posting the meme? Let's be honest, he doesn't. So, does anyone?

 

[Pwent]

well most of those countries defense strategy is that of a woman- run to a big strong man a.k.a. america

weve been subsidizing their defense for decades, they dont bother to have a big military because they have a scary boyfriend


that being said, i dont see any reason why a woman cant be a defense minister if shes good at her job. i think whoever is best for the job should have it, race or gender be damned

 

[TheComebackKid]

Thank God Trump won

 

[Nihongi]

Milfs

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I don't know about all that. Women can be downright ruthless compared to most men. With a few notable exceptions, most men will just kill you if they need revenge or to stop you. Women on the other hand will cut you a thousand times, dump you in lye, let you stew for a bit, then put a bullet in your dome.

The evidence shows the opposite. Even MRA can now admit it although many fight it and love promoting the idea that women would cause more chaos. To be quite frank there is strong evidence to suggest there would be substantially less violent and less war. With that said there are definitely alpha females who in the context of a patriarchal society and a Darwinian world would follow through and promote war and conquer. There have been quite a few prominent Queens in the old days who expanded their nations and took them to war. Although it can be said in all these cases (even Catherine the Great) these women were surrounded and empowered by men. And yes Catherine had her scheming husband killed but by the hands of some of her male followers. It should be noted though that she had anti-death penalty sentiments and follow through with such. We see similar patterns in who supports preemptive war more and capital punishment with women supporting these actions far less.

In general though and as I might agree with some feminists. Aggressive women in today's world may not have been as aggressive if they didn't grow up in a patriarchal world led by men and with aggression built in anywhere. How you get a woman like a Golda Meir can be said to be the result of a male ruled world. And since the will to live and survival is present in both men and women it therefore isn't to be strange or in the least bit odd if women do act aggressively in defense. Women for instance may hate someone and consider them inferior but typically they prefer the approach of excluding that individual or isolating them (prison sentence and to be kept away), men are more inclined to want to kill the individual as it might make more logical sense and be efficient to just eliminate the problem rather then keep it around.

So no doubt there should be some war but I'd argue preemptive war would be occurring a lot less.

Also,

 

[AnytimeAnywhereAldo]

I don't know about all that. Women can be downright ruthless compared to most men. With a few notable exceptions, most men will just kill you if they need revenge or to stop you. Women on the other hand will cut you a thousand times, dump you in lye, let you stew for a bit, then put a bullet in your dome.

IF you show weakness, then they will be brutal. Nothing disgusts women more than a weak man.

But a strong man? A woman will willingly submit and betray her own to be dominated by a strong man. Which is why these "educated, progressive" women are hungrily letting in hundreds of thousands of savage, angry migrants. They need real men, as their progressive European counterparts are failing to satisfy this role.

The fact that a country's men even lets a woman into the position of "Ministry of Defense" (or any position of power really) is the ultimate shit test. They absolutely failed and shall now be outbred for it.

 

[Teppodama]

The evidence shows the opposite. Even MRA can now admit it although many fight it and love promoting the idea that women would cause more chaos. To be quote frank there is strong evidence to suggest there would be substantially less violence and war. With that said

Oh don't get me wrong. Women would be less likely to start crap. Over all, they can get along better. But they hold grudges better and can generally be more ruthless when it comes to expedient acts of revenge.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm just happy that the movement to push women in combat will stop dead in its tracks

 

[Teppodama]

Oh don't get me wrong. Women would be less likely to start crap. Over all, they can get along better. But they hold grudges better and can generally be more ruthless when it comes to expedient acts of revenge.

Or course I'm also exaggerating a tad for effect, but I've met a few women I'd consider crossing the street to avoid.

 

[m52nickerson]

IF you show weakness, then they will be brutal. Nothing disgusts women more than a weak man.

But a strong man? A woman will willingly submit and betray her own to be dominated by a strong man. Which is why these "educated, progressive" women are hungrily letting in hundreds of thousands of savage, angry migrants. They need real men, as their progressive European counterparts are failing to satisfy this role.

The fact that a country's men even lets a woman into the position of "Ministry of Defense" (or any position of power really) is the ultimate shit test. They absolutely failed and shall now be outbred for it.

What rock did you crawl out from under?

 

[EvilWasLittle]

I don't know about all that. Women can be downright ruthless compared to most men. With a few notable exceptions, most men will just kill you if they need revenge or to stop you. Women on the other hand will cut you a thousand times, dump you in lye, let you stew for a bit, then put a bullet in your dome.

I'd rather have someone who will kill than play around with all that other foolishness.

 

[EvilWasLittle]

Norway is a carpet muncher for sure.

 

[AnytimeAnywhereAldo]

What rock did you crawl out from under?

Grown man with an R2D2 avatar.

You are the exact type of "male" which necessitated mass migration of masculine savage men.

 

[KantoTerror]

Milfs

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

Sexist, imo.

 

[surgeyou1]

Lol blatant misogyny. You know defense ministers don't actually fight anyone, right TS?