Gianna Carlson

🚨 LEFTIST VIOLENCE STRIKES AGAIN This deranged leftist marched right up, destroyed our sign, and beamed with pride like she just won the lottery. Classic left: trying to silence conservatives through force. Didn’t work. 20 minutes later we rolled back from Walmart with two fresh signs and kept the conversation going stronger than ever. YOU CAN’T SILENCE THE TRUTH. 💪

Because yall apparently think everything by you have came from feminism…

Voting was originally tied to defending the state, duties women were largely exempt from. Extending female suffrage in the 20th century coincided with larger welfare states, higher taxes, and greater emphasis on care policies over defense or fiscal discipline. This isn’t a judgment on women’s intelligence, but a recognition that mass democracy works best when voters’ incentives align with protection and order rather than redistribution. Most women at the time didn’t even want the vote. Anti-suffrage groups like the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage argued that voting would burden domestic responsibilities, erode protections, force competition with men, and corrupt women’s moral influence outcomes that history shows largely came to pass. Biologically and psychologically, women tend to score higher on agreeableness and neuroticism and make decisions more relationally. This predicts voting patterns favoring security, redistribution, and harm avoidance over long-term strength, order, or fiscal discipline. Expanding suffrage without accounting for these patterns has predictable trade-offs. Reconsidering this logic is about empirical consequences, not misogyny.

The belief that men are meant to lead while women focus on the home comes from traditional views of complementary roles, not from the idea that women are incapable or unimportant. Throughout history, women have had influence and strong opinions, but many chose to prioritize family, motherhood, and supporting their husbands as a central part of their role. Even Queen Victoria, one of the most powerful women in history, valued her role as a wife and looked to her husband for guidance in many areas of life. She even said in her vows that she would “love and obey him” This perspective holds that a woman’s place in the home is not about limitation, but about building a strong foundation for family and society through her influence, care, and leadership within that space. Just because woman are of equal value does not mean that they have equal roles… that’s not a bad thing that’s just nature.

Women have participated in sports for centuries, before feminism. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, women were already competing in tennis, golf, archery, and cycling, and events for women were included in early modern Olympic Games starting in 1900. Athletes like Charlotte Cooper, the first female Olympic champion, show that women were competing at elite levels long before feminism. Women had also formed their own leagues and teams because they knew they weren’t on the same level as men. I wonder what those woman would think of the wannabes (transgenders) trying to take their roles and hurting real woman in the process.

Women didn’t gain a voice because of feminism. History shows they’ve always had one, even if it wasn’t always expressed in the same way it is today. Rulers like Cleopatra, have made decisions, led nations, and shaped history long before modern feminist movements. Woman like Harriet Tubman proved women didn’t need feminism to speak, lead, or create change they already were. Feminism didn’t invent women having influence or a voice and it’s misleading to say it did.

Women were wearing pants long before feminism because of basic practicality, not politics. In situations where safety and mobility mattered like during World War I and World War II women working in factories, farms, and industrial jobs wore trousers to avoid injury and move efficiently. Women in physically demanding roles like pilots, horseback riders, and laborers also wore pants out of necessity. Even earlier, in various cultures, women wore pants or similar garments for riding and outdoor work. Then over time, what started as functional clothing became more socially accepted, especially as designers like Coco Chanel helped bring trousers into everyday fashion. So the shift that had woman wearing pants wasn’t feminism it was practically and fashion.

Feminism did not suddenly give women the ability to have or share their opinions. Women have always possessed voices, convictions, and influence long before the movement. Throughout history, women spoke into politics, faith, and society figures like Deborah in the Bible, Queen Victoria, and Joan of Arc all demonstrate that women were and are capable of thinking, leading, and expressing themselves in powerful ways. Women did not go from silence to speech.

“Women had no voice before feminism” is false. Women have led nations, influenced wars, and shaped history for centuries. To say otherwise is to discredit those women.

Live w/ National Highschool Conservatives of America x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Happy International Women's Day to the women who know our worth isn't measured by how much we imitate men. True womanhood is powerful on its own nurturing life, building families, and living with faith, grace, and courage. And finally only to women with XX CHROMOSOMES 🫶

BREAKING 🚨 THOUSANDS of students line up in the rain at the University of Mississippi to see Vice President JD Vance and Charlie’s wife Erika Kirk Such a HISTORIC moment for America WE MISS YOU CHARLIE ❤️

Nah he just destroyed the whole country…

With reports of schools discriminating against Turning Point and Club America chapters, my office stands ready to investigate. We must ensure our publicly funded colleges and schools are safe havens for free speech and not discriminating against conservatives.