Because right wingers are stereotyped as not knowing what the clitoris is LOL
Also, the online right seems engaged in what it thinks to be masculinity but is often just being a trollish ass. Real masculinity isn’t really so strongly coded, though the “left” would do well to back off some of its misandry and the excesses of consent culture.
it reads like highly idealized, underinformed fantasy that relies on drawing generalizations and parallels from material that should be more specific and perpendicular. reading it, i could not think of a single application for its wisdom except perhaps identity signaling. Who is this FOR??? i found myself asking
At the risk of sounding defensive, the "chuddy chasers" section, rather than being a description of ordinary people, is written for and about people familiar with specific online dynamics and communities. To your credit, I could have made that more clear, but then I also didn't anticipate this would be so popular lol
As for the other sections -- IDK. I would push back on your characterization of it being "overly broad."
Interesting. I still think think there is a desire for lacking masculinity at play in whatever leftist female attraction to rightist male there is, but there is certainly a structural power disparity at play.
Isn’t the characterization of “institutional power” in this context basically just a stand-in for status and prestige? It’s seen as high status (by midwits) to be a Leftist because that’s what alleged “experts” and college professors are (prestige), and thats what pop culture and corporate HR departments promote (propaganda)… but that’s a very neoliberal and managerial reading of “power” and basically ignores the fact that the only thing preventing institutional power from shifting very violently rightward is the good nature and willingness to continue participating in these institutions by those chuds on the Right (which is waning daily). Everyone intuits that the final gatekeepers of power are the Right, in that they’re actually able (if not currently willing) to use violence as a real political solution. So while it might emotionally feel mocking and humiliating to be doxxed or publicly slandered by some BPD art hoe, her actual power over your life is really just how much you’ve internalized the message she’s trying to use to whip you. The less liberal you are (meaning actually Right-wing) the less her Salon think-piece even enters your radar. Meanwhile the leftist girl slumming it with the low status (to her) HVAC worker or lineman (who says racist stuff but makes more than any leftist man she knows and is part of the actual infrastructure of society), is really just cosplaying as a normal working class wife who has a relationship with any working class man. They’re cosplaying a normie lifestyle with the general type of person they’d actually have a family with. The only reason it’s a cosplay in the first place is because her 30-year-old Leftism has brainwashed her into thinking that having or wanting a stable partner and a family is somehow abnormal or edgy, when really it’s just the baseline. “Periodically progressives reverse engineer healthy sexual behavior and they act like they’ve discovered Atlantis”
I mean, that makes sense as a response if you’re so deep down the Deleuze & Guattari hole that you think all normativity is performative. It’s not fetishizing to literally just notice that there is a baseline and that normal people aren’t trying to act out some humiliation kink or something. I think perhaps the fetishists are the ones trying to read some kind of ulterior motives into normie human psychology. Postmodern French philosophers were almost to a man all pedos, and their tomes of ranting are best understood as desperate apologetics for their own antisocial fetishes, so they tried to paint the whole world as just varying shades of fetish. It sounds flashy and cool in your 20’s, and a few of them had some decent social criticism, but really it’s just a philosophical solvent meant to dissolve all meaning so they can just make some shit up and do what they want.
My point here is more foucaultian than Deluezian, and I think you've misread it. I'm not saying that normal sexual relations are fetishistic, I'm saying that people who fetishise normal sexual polarity are Othering it to deal with the fact that their egalitarian worldview doesn't comport with their desires. When wanting a strong masculine man to dominate you is kink, it is safe, it is not admitting the normality of it, the desirability of it as a societal model. You can keep the liberal, ateleological worldview if you dress your desire up up leather bondage gear.
Ahhhhh ok, that’s actually very interesting. Mary Harrington has a throwaway hypothesis; that most of the appeal of the “kink” community is just a stand-in for the actual biological risks (or normal outcomes) that we’ve mostly dispensed of with the Pill. That if people didn’t practice “safe sex” with “protection” they might not care that much about getting choked because the instinctual and primal risk would be present without need for some simulacrum.
I think the power dynamics stuff is interesting but maybe over complicating things a bit. Many (though not all by any means!) women are attracted to really masculine guys. Many of those guys will be right wing, to a greater or lesser degree. A lot of women, especially those who are less politically engaged, will prioritize the attraction over the politics. To the extent you were focusing on really political women getting involved with manosphere/incel men, yeah there’s probably more going on there and I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion. Liked the piece in any case.
What about right-wing women with left-wing men? My marriage isn't quite that, but I'm an ancom married to a formerly "apolitical" girl whom I have slowly "educated" about politics, but who is almost always intuitively to the "right" of me whenever she's prompted to form her own opinion about something instead of deferring to me, as she prefers to do.
This is a great topic to discuss. For edgy people with a sense of humor who can tolerate partners with different viewpoints, at least long enough to dominate them, or whatever the archetype demands, there’s probably a lot of fun to be had here.
However, there is too much nuance in the changing definitions of right and left for me to understand how I’m supposed to behave relative to these archetypes. There is a huge spectrum of people who are now considered right wing by insiders who haven’t changed their political leanings much in the Trump era. Now whenever anyone mentions the right I usually have to ask “well which right are you talking about, Reagan or Trump or what?” There’s a huge difference there but the politics of othering has conflated those in the mind of the average left-winger.
I voted for Obama twice, Jill Stein in both prior Trump elections, and Trump this time but my core beliefs have not changed much at all. It’s the political parties that have changed, and the insiders have redefined the right to be basically anyone not totally on board with insider views on trans and feminism. This is the primary cause of the democrats defeat in the election and perpetuating this new definition will continue to be very counterproductive to the left. The insiders are literally turning me into a right-winger by redefining the term, then attacking me for my political stance, which is basically the same as it was when I voted for Obama. Back when the ACLU was still defending freedom and Glenn Greenwald was still “on the left” I was opposed to the republicans and their wars and cronyism as a matter of principle. When Obama was elected, I was horrified to watch people I respected and thought I was aligned with on an intellectual and even moral level start defending the new administration as they did exactly the same shit that we criticized Bush for. Steven Colbert comes to mind as the most disappointing and on the other side of course we have Greenwald as the example of someone who continued to fight against the principles not just the party.
I say all of this because the archetypes presented depend on the definitions, and if I used to be left but now I’m right how can they possibly apply in a practical sense? Maybe when you start to think of yourself as a right winger your T rises and you take the red pill and suddenly you believe that women are put here only to satisfy us sexually? And is that what you mean when you say that right wing communities are becoming more openly misogynistic, even by design? I don’t get that. Sure there are plenty of assholes out there and there are plenty of idiots who follow them but the idea that our unwashed masses of newly minted right wingers is listening to woman hating podcasts, watching violent porn nonstop, and plotting their future devaluation and domination of a few lucky ladies just doesn’t compute. From where I stand it looks the terms have been redefined to fit a narrative crafted with the goal of destroying intersex relations. Hilariously this fits perfect with the “conspiracy theory” that the left is bent on destroying the family as the primary building block of our society, as does the shunning movement overall. Talk about walking right into that one. I bet the insider definition of Misogyny would read as anti-feminist to me as opposed to anti-woman. From what I’ve seen in the last year or so anyone denying or even questioning that women are equal to men in every way is cast as an irredeemable misogynist. Again sure there’s lots toxic content and ideas out there but stereotyping a huge group of young men for daring to trust their own experience that there are indeed major differences between men and women and wanting to learn more about that so that they can better navigate the world is such a losing tactic that it’s almost comical. Shunning works for the Amish because it’s a small number of transgressors and a large number of shunners. Well that’s not what the world is looking like. There is a huge majority of young men who are doomed to be othered simply by the insiders’ redefining these terms! That’s a huge problem for the left and again why they lost and will continue to lose now that they have marginalized, targeted, and overall just pissed off most of the young men in this country. Those people are lost forever and likely to remain politically active moving forward, or at least as long as the narrative marginalizes them. I’m not young but I’m firmly in this category. I haven’t changed much at all other than growing up and watching what people do vs what they look like, who they are standing next to, what they say, etc and started making judgements based on action. That’s not how young men are being judged right now and that’s a really bad thing for our society, especially for young women! We are demonizing young men and pushing them to extremes with this petty behavior and it’s just insanely counterproductive in a way that the left seems to have absolutely mastered since Trump appeared on the political scene.
Finally, I like your take on the left desire to control and dominate, especially over the right. That’s totally on brand from where I stand and again for those willing to explore it there’s probably some very hot political role play to be had.
The problem is that the left is extremely allergic to reason; so any use of it will have you categorized as an oppressor and thus you have to be right wing because they self identify as savior (cognitive dissonance and all).
I agree that the left has a fetish of dominance and it’s not a coincidence that there is a lot of women here. It plays into the fantasm of many women to dominate men because you dream about what you cannot do. Which exactly why power given to women should be kept in check even more than power given to men, they much more likely to abuse it, to realize their fantasy…
Yes. The crazy part of this dynamic you point out is that the left projects so much that they are simultaneously obsessed with dominating anyone who believes differently AND infected with a slave mentality. They represent both the oppressor and the oppressed in the same moment, hate themselves for the oppressor part, and project that hate onto anyone who refuses to be their slave as if that person was enslaving them! By this method they trick themselves into believing that they are being oppressed when in fact they hold all the levers of power in society today. It’s a mindfuck of epic proportions and explains why they are unable to reason or fight back against their own ideological policing. It’s a prison of their own making that demands ever escalating devotion to self-destructing arguments that serve as a purity test. And then they add another dimension to the mindfuck - a stubborn tendency to favor being right over succeeding as an individual. They would rather have their cities burn and be right about anthropogenic global warming than mitigate risks and lose the fires as a weapon in the argument! It’s really no wonder that the domains controlled by this type of person are crumbling - they are fundamentally disconnected from reason by multiple internal ideological defense mechanisms, and they’re all subtly injected into their subconscious!
I’m going to preface by saying that I’m employing the term women loosely because I believe it actually includes quite a bit of men nowadays, because society has told them they were defective women and thus needed to be more like them.
The external appearance of the men doesn’t really match the expected behavior and they usually try to dominate over every meaningless little thing and it’s always in a concealed way just like women.
Projection is fundamentally a women behavior because they don’t see the world as an objective reality that you can act on to get various results. This is because they experience things as feelings that are constantly changing and subjective to any external observation.
Which is why they manipulate men with emotions to get the results they want instead of acting directly.
The left is very much like that, it is a society level manipulation with the trait of authoritarianism which women tend to like (makes them feel safe).
They are perfectly capable of reasoning just not on any topic where there is any kind of emotion associated. Since women typically let their emotions run wild for everything and anything there is very little that can be debated without them defaulting to that behavior.
I believe this is why there is so few successful women in science, the one that do, tend to behave more like men and end up being a « bad » woman (in the sense of not being very desirable for men regardless of their physical attractiveness).
Nowadays women are almost always the oppressor, through the state and men that they control but they will pretend to have no power to appear as victims.
One « funny » behavior to demonstrate this, is how they always try to delegate choice to whatever men they can find in the situation and then complain about it if the result is not to their expectations even though they had the power to choose themselves and used their manipulative power to have a man choose for them. The only way for a man to « win » is to tell them to fuck off. That’s alright for inconsequential every day thing but a big problem at the state/society level because we are not allowed to tell them to fuck off (in fact the reverse is encouraged).
What you say about them needing to be right is actually the result of them working on feelings. When you don’t use reasoning you can never know anything because you didn’t do the work to back up the proof. So what they do is throw their ideas to men and have them work on it but the issue is that they determine what is right depending on how the men speaking make them feel. Which is exactly why they always end up backing overconfident narcissistic asshole because it makes them feel good even though they don’t know shit. Men who know enough to understand there is not many « sure » things outside of mathematics/physics (and even there not everything can be a certainty) don’t fare well and are routinely dismissed.
The political landscape is a good reflection of that, they are systematically backing the wrong horse, depending on how he makes them feel.
I agree that any field they take over end up being very fucked up. In my country it’s healthcare/teaching and the results are atrocious. But you cannot point to this bizarre « coincidence « because that would be misogynistic…
We should feel lucky that women never intended to do any real work because if they were to take over fields like agriculture/construction/engineering we would be truly done for.
It’s funny that you mention global warming because I believe it is largely a result of women getting both economic and political power.
Women are mostly concerned by status and many thing they do is governed by that. Which is why they keep buying a lot of unnecessary crap and always need new things that are in fashion at the moment. Men tend to give less shit (at least they did, remember they have been told to be more like women) but they really really want to appear successful to attract them. This also makes them buy a lot of crap that need constant upgrading (and there is minimal amount of sharing because you need to own the stuff to be worth something).
All this regardless of actual technical progress or utilitarian benefits. Our current society where most thing are not repairable or maintainable is largely the result of this desire.
To make matters worse, because we made women enter the workforce (for their « independence ») and paid them as much as men without them providing as much actual value, it was decided to ship the manufacturing overseas in order to make crap even cheaper so they could buy more of it.
We will eventually pay for it because when a country is dependent on others for all manufacturing it is in a bad position to negotiate anything.
On top of that we have a large bureaucracy of all sort to make stupid rules that only takes value, catering to their needs of « security «. Said bureaucracy is largely comprised of women if that even need clarification.
The hyper growth of government bureaucracy and the exploitative nature of many associated organizations is largely in the same dynamic.
To top all this, they favored the growth of 3rd world countries by politically forcing financial and logistical help which allowed them grow their population without first doing the hard work (this is still ongoing). And now they want us to gladly accept migrants that will depress men’s wage even more (making them less desirable to them in the process but they don’t understand their nature).
To be fair it’s not just women’s fault but the greedy men that orchestrated all of this were empowered by women or were catering to their « needs ».
There is a lot more to write about this but what I’m saying is that most of this is the result of submitting to the female imperative.
Interesting Article. I wonder if this phenomenon might work both ways. Do right-wing women go after left-wing men? I tent to label the bad-guy Christian Grey types as right-wing. Perhaps the fact is that right-wing men are generally more masculine then left-wing men.
I dont think it generally works in the other direction. But then again, I am no expert, but simply in search of that missing variable. I think it is more a matter of masculine and feminine energy, it is just that stereotypically, feminine men are found a lot more on the left, but feminine women are attracted to masculine men, on average.
"Chuddy Chasers" - absolute gem, made me actually laugh.
Attraction to the political opposite as a sexual pairing, often "Hate Fucking" or a sense of wanting to conquer or be dominated is well known by anyone who's frank about their time getting around.
I think there's a much more basic reason for why right wing men "go after" left wing women, and that's because that's the women who are available to them. Single women vote almost 2/3's for the Democrats, and the remaining 1/3 probably live in deep red areas. Most of the online right lives in or near major metros, so most of the women they encounter lean left. If you live in LA or NY how many conservative ladies are you going to encounter?
Had that exact same thought. German west-urban dude in my early thirties here. I imagine Germany to be somewhat different from the US, but it is basically what you wrote. Most, what I like to call "normie" women, tend towards the left or rather toward the anti-right sphere. It is like a Pavlovian reflex, which makes it sorta easy to screen them out, but dayum, lemme tell you, not a lot left (pun not intended) after that. The majority, if not all, of good looking conservative or rather non-normie women are already married. With the normies it is a gamble. Because behind the political stuff are still just boy and girl. Romantic relationships are difficult enough in 2024, the political divide is just another hurdle on top. On the off chance I might sound salty, I encourage everyone to just keep on keeping on. That is what I do. Desperation is temporary and suffering optional. Easier said than done, believe you me, I've been thru that wringer, but what else is there? Give up and submit to the Zeitgeist? No. Life is a losing game. Without passion, you are already dead. Or so I tell myself, BUT, here and there, it helps. Keep on keeping on.
from IMDB An FBI agent (Debra Winger) posing as a combine driver becomes romantically involved with a Midwest farmer (Tom Berenger) who lives a double life as a white supremacist.
also
only women and leftists think "social power" is a real thing
The article seemed like nonsense, but what a great headline!
Why is it nonsense?
Because right wingers are stereotyped as not knowing what the clitoris is LOL
Also, the online right seems engaged in what it thinks to be masculinity but is often just being a trollish ass. Real masculinity isn’t really so strongly coded, though the “left” would do well to back off some of its misandry and the excesses of consent culture.
it reads like highly idealized, underinformed fantasy that relies on drawing generalizations and parallels from material that should be more specific and perpendicular. reading it, i could not think of a single application for its wisdom except perhaps identity signaling. Who is this FOR??? i found myself asking
At the risk of sounding defensive, the "chuddy chasers" section, rather than being a description of ordinary people, is written for and about people familiar with specific online dynamics and communities. To your credit, I could have made that more clear, but then I also didn't anticipate this would be so popular lol
As for the other sections -- IDK. I would push back on your characterization of it being "overly broad."
Interesting. I still think think there is a desire for lacking masculinity at play in whatever leftist female attraction to rightist male there is, but there is certainly a structural power disparity at play.
Isn’t the characterization of “institutional power” in this context basically just a stand-in for status and prestige? It’s seen as high status (by midwits) to be a Leftist because that’s what alleged “experts” and college professors are (prestige), and thats what pop culture and corporate HR departments promote (propaganda)… but that’s a very neoliberal and managerial reading of “power” and basically ignores the fact that the only thing preventing institutional power from shifting very violently rightward is the good nature and willingness to continue participating in these institutions by those chuds on the Right (which is waning daily). Everyone intuits that the final gatekeepers of power are the Right, in that they’re actually able (if not currently willing) to use violence as a real political solution. So while it might emotionally feel mocking and humiliating to be doxxed or publicly slandered by some BPD art hoe, her actual power over your life is really just how much you’ve internalized the message she’s trying to use to whip you. The less liberal you are (meaning actually Right-wing) the less her Salon think-piece even enters your radar. Meanwhile the leftist girl slumming it with the low status (to her) HVAC worker or lineman (who says racist stuff but makes more than any leftist man she knows and is part of the actual infrastructure of society), is really just cosplaying as a normal working class wife who has a relationship with any working class man. They’re cosplaying a normie lifestyle with the general type of person they’d actually have a family with. The only reason it’s a cosplay in the first place is because her 30-year-old Leftism has brainwashed her into thinking that having or wanting a stable partner and a family is somehow abnormal or edgy, when really it’s just the baseline. “Periodically progressives reverse engineer healthy sexual behavior and they act like they’ve discovered Atlantis”
An example of fetishisation of normality as a cope for conventional desires. I hope to write on this at some point.
I mean, that makes sense as a response if you’re so deep down the Deleuze & Guattari hole that you think all normativity is performative. It’s not fetishizing to literally just notice that there is a baseline and that normal people aren’t trying to act out some humiliation kink or something. I think perhaps the fetishists are the ones trying to read some kind of ulterior motives into normie human psychology. Postmodern French philosophers were almost to a man all pedos, and their tomes of ranting are best understood as desperate apologetics for their own antisocial fetishes, so they tried to paint the whole world as just varying shades of fetish. It sounds flashy and cool in your 20’s, and a few of them had some decent social criticism, but really it’s just a philosophical solvent meant to dissolve all meaning so they can just make some shit up and do what they want.
My point here is more foucaultian than Deluezian, and I think you've misread it. I'm not saying that normal sexual relations are fetishistic, I'm saying that people who fetishise normal sexual polarity are Othering it to deal with the fact that their egalitarian worldview doesn't comport with their desires. When wanting a strong masculine man to dominate you is kink, it is safe, it is not admitting the normality of it, the desirability of it as a societal model. You can keep the liberal, ateleological worldview if you dress your desire up up leather bondage gear.
Ahhhhh ok, that’s actually very interesting. Mary Harrington has a throwaway hypothesis; that most of the appeal of the “kink” community is just a stand-in for the actual biological risks (or normal outcomes) that we’ve mostly dispensed of with the Pill. That if people didn’t practice “safe sex” with “protection” they might not care that much about getting choked because the instinctual and primal risk would be present without need for some simulacrum.
I think the power dynamics stuff is interesting but maybe over complicating things a bit. Many (though not all by any means!) women are attracted to really masculine guys. Many of those guys will be right wing, to a greater or lesser degree. A lot of women, especially those who are less politically engaged, will prioritize the attraction over the politics. To the extent you were focusing on really political women getting involved with manosphere/incel men, yeah there’s probably more going on there and I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion. Liked the piece in any case.
https://open.substack.com/pub/stevenberger/p/on-sexuality?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1nm0v2
Sorry, lost interest about 250 words into your essay.
What about right-wing women with left-wing men? My marriage isn't quite that, but I'm an ancom married to a formerly "apolitical" girl whom I have slowly "educated" about politics, but who is almost always intuitively to the "right" of me whenever she's prompted to form her own opinion about something instead of deferring to me, as she prefers to do.
Perhaps relevant note: She is very, very BPD.
“Chuddy chasers” 🤣
This is a great topic to discuss. For edgy people with a sense of humor who can tolerate partners with different viewpoints, at least long enough to dominate them, or whatever the archetype demands, there’s probably a lot of fun to be had here.
However, there is too much nuance in the changing definitions of right and left for me to understand how I’m supposed to behave relative to these archetypes. There is a huge spectrum of people who are now considered right wing by insiders who haven’t changed their political leanings much in the Trump era. Now whenever anyone mentions the right I usually have to ask “well which right are you talking about, Reagan or Trump or what?” There’s a huge difference there but the politics of othering has conflated those in the mind of the average left-winger.
I voted for Obama twice, Jill Stein in both prior Trump elections, and Trump this time but my core beliefs have not changed much at all. It’s the political parties that have changed, and the insiders have redefined the right to be basically anyone not totally on board with insider views on trans and feminism. This is the primary cause of the democrats defeat in the election and perpetuating this new definition will continue to be very counterproductive to the left. The insiders are literally turning me into a right-winger by redefining the term, then attacking me for my political stance, which is basically the same as it was when I voted for Obama. Back when the ACLU was still defending freedom and Glenn Greenwald was still “on the left” I was opposed to the republicans and their wars and cronyism as a matter of principle. When Obama was elected, I was horrified to watch people I respected and thought I was aligned with on an intellectual and even moral level start defending the new administration as they did exactly the same shit that we criticized Bush for. Steven Colbert comes to mind as the most disappointing and on the other side of course we have Greenwald as the example of someone who continued to fight against the principles not just the party.
I say all of this because the archetypes presented depend on the definitions, and if I used to be left but now I’m right how can they possibly apply in a practical sense? Maybe when you start to think of yourself as a right winger your T rises and you take the red pill and suddenly you believe that women are put here only to satisfy us sexually? And is that what you mean when you say that right wing communities are becoming more openly misogynistic, even by design? I don’t get that. Sure there are plenty of assholes out there and there are plenty of idiots who follow them but the idea that our unwashed masses of newly minted right wingers is listening to woman hating podcasts, watching violent porn nonstop, and plotting their future devaluation and domination of a few lucky ladies just doesn’t compute. From where I stand it looks the terms have been redefined to fit a narrative crafted with the goal of destroying intersex relations. Hilariously this fits perfect with the “conspiracy theory” that the left is bent on destroying the family as the primary building block of our society, as does the shunning movement overall. Talk about walking right into that one. I bet the insider definition of Misogyny would read as anti-feminist to me as opposed to anti-woman. From what I’ve seen in the last year or so anyone denying or even questioning that women are equal to men in every way is cast as an irredeemable misogynist. Again sure there’s lots toxic content and ideas out there but stereotyping a huge group of young men for daring to trust their own experience that there are indeed major differences between men and women and wanting to learn more about that so that they can better navigate the world is such a losing tactic that it’s almost comical. Shunning works for the Amish because it’s a small number of transgressors and a large number of shunners. Well that’s not what the world is looking like. There is a huge majority of young men who are doomed to be othered simply by the insiders’ redefining these terms! That’s a huge problem for the left and again why they lost and will continue to lose now that they have marginalized, targeted, and overall just pissed off most of the young men in this country. Those people are lost forever and likely to remain politically active moving forward, or at least as long as the narrative marginalizes them. I’m not young but I’m firmly in this category. I haven’t changed much at all other than growing up and watching what people do vs what they look like, who they are standing next to, what they say, etc and started making judgements based on action. That’s not how young men are being judged right now and that’s a really bad thing for our society, especially for young women! We are demonizing young men and pushing them to extremes with this petty behavior and it’s just insanely counterproductive in a way that the left seems to have absolutely mastered since Trump appeared on the political scene.
Finally, I like your take on the left desire to control and dominate, especially over the right. That’s totally on brand from where I stand and again for those willing to explore it there’s probably some very hot political role play to be had.
Pretty much on point.
The problem is that the left is extremely allergic to reason; so any use of it will have you categorized as an oppressor and thus you have to be right wing because they self identify as savior (cognitive dissonance and all).
I agree that the left has a fetish of dominance and it’s not a coincidence that there is a lot of women here. It plays into the fantasm of many women to dominate men because you dream about what you cannot do. Which exactly why power given to women should be kept in check even more than power given to men, they much more likely to abuse it, to realize their fantasy…
Yes. The crazy part of this dynamic you point out is that the left projects so much that they are simultaneously obsessed with dominating anyone who believes differently AND infected with a slave mentality. They represent both the oppressor and the oppressed in the same moment, hate themselves for the oppressor part, and project that hate onto anyone who refuses to be their slave as if that person was enslaving them! By this method they trick themselves into believing that they are being oppressed when in fact they hold all the levers of power in society today. It’s a mindfuck of epic proportions and explains why they are unable to reason or fight back against their own ideological policing. It’s a prison of their own making that demands ever escalating devotion to self-destructing arguments that serve as a purity test. And then they add another dimension to the mindfuck - a stubborn tendency to favor being right over succeeding as an individual. They would rather have their cities burn and be right about anthropogenic global warming than mitigate risks and lose the fires as a weapon in the argument! It’s really no wonder that the domains controlled by this type of person are crumbling - they are fundamentally disconnected from reason by multiple internal ideological defense mechanisms, and they’re all subtly injected into their subconscious!
I’m going to preface by saying that I’m employing the term women loosely because I believe it actually includes quite a bit of men nowadays, because society has told them they were defective women and thus needed to be more like them.
The external appearance of the men doesn’t really match the expected behavior and they usually try to dominate over every meaningless little thing and it’s always in a concealed way just like women.
Projection is fundamentally a women behavior because they don’t see the world as an objective reality that you can act on to get various results. This is because they experience things as feelings that are constantly changing and subjective to any external observation.
Which is why they manipulate men with emotions to get the results they want instead of acting directly.
The left is very much like that, it is a society level manipulation with the trait of authoritarianism which women tend to like (makes them feel safe).
They are perfectly capable of reasoning just not on any topic where there is any kind of emotion associated. Since women typically let their emotions run wild for everything and anything there is very little that can be debated without them defaulting to that behavior.
I believe this is why there is so few successful women in science, the one that do, tend to behave more like men and end up being a « bad » woman (in the sense of not being very desirable for men regardless of their physical attractiveness).
Nowadays women are almost always the oppressor, through the state and men that they control but they will pretend to have no power to appear as victims.
One « funny » behavior to demonstrate this, is how they always try to delegate choice to whatever men they can find in the situation and then complain about it if the result is not to their expectations even though they had the power to choose themselves and used their manipulative power to have a man choose for them. The only way for a man to « win » is to tell them to fuck off. That’s alright for inconsequential every day thing but a big problem at the state/society level because we are not allowed to tell them to fuck off (in fact the reverse is encouraged).
What you say about them needing to be right is actually the result of them working on feelings. When you don’t use reasoning you can never know anything because you didn’t do the work to back up the proof. So what they do is throw their ideas to men and have them work on it but the issue is that they determine what is right depending on how the men speaking make them feel. Which is exactly why they always end up backing overconfident narcissistic asshole because it makes them feel good even though they don’t know shit. Men who know enough to understand there is not many « sure » things outside of mathematics/physics (and even there not everything can be a certainty) don’t fare well and are routinely dismissed.
The political landscape is a good reflection of that, they are systematically backing the wrong horse, depending on how he makes them feel.
I agree that any field they take over end up being very fucked up. In my country it’s healthcare/teaching and the results are atrocious. But you cannot point to this bizarre « coincidence « because that would be misogynistic…
We should feel lucky that women never intended to do any real work because if they were to take over fields like agriculture/construction/engineering we would be truly done for.
It’s funny that you mention global warming because I believe it is largely a result of women getting both economic and political power.
Women are mostly concerned by status and many thing they do is governed by that. Which is why they keep buying a lot of unnecessary crap and always need new things that are in fashion at the moment. Men tend to give less shit (at least they did, remember they have been told to be more like women) but they really really want to appear successful to attract them. This also makes them buy a lot of crap that need constant upgrading (and there is minimal amount of sharing because you need to own the stuff to be worth something).
All this regardless of actual technical progress or utilitarian benefits. Our current society where most thing are not repairable or maintainable is largely the result of this desire.
To make matters worse, because we made women enter the workforce (for their « independence ») and paid them as much as men without them providing as much actual value, it was decided to ship the manufacturing overseas in order to make crap even cheaper so they could buy more of it.
We will eventually pay for it because when a country is dependent on others for all manufacturing it is in a bad position to negotiate anything.
On top of that we have a large bureaucracy of all sort to make stupid rules that only takes value, catering to their needs of « security «. Said bureaucracy is largely comprised of women if that even need clarification.
The hyper growth of government bureaucracy and the exploitative nature of many associated organizations is largely in the same dynamic.
To top all this, they favored the growth of 3rd world countries by politically forcing financial and logistical help which allowed them grow their population without first doing the hard work (this is still ongoing). And now they want us to gladly accept migrants that will depress men’s wage even more (making them less desirable to them in the process but they don’t understand their nature).
To be fair it’s not just women’s fault but the greedy men that orchestrated all of this were empowered by women or were catering to their « needs ».
There is a lot more to write about this but what I’m saying is that most of this is the result of submitting to the female imperative.
Interesting Article. I wonder if this phenomenon might work both ways. Do right-wing women go after left-wing men? I tent to label the bad-guy Christian Grey types as right-wing. Perhaps the fact is that right-wing men are generally more masculine then left-wing men.
I dont think it generally works in the other direction. But then again, I am no expert, but simply in search of that missing variable. I think it is more a matter of masculine and feminine energy, it is just that stereotypically, feminine men are found a lot more on the left, but feminine women are attracted to masculine men, on average.
I think so, but you're right that that's under explored.
I’m a center right guy. All my gfs have been center left. That’s how it’s supposed to be. It’s biological.
preach brother
This used to work more often than today. Blake Nelson appears to be a GenXer maybe?
As American society deteriorates for the younger generations this is increasingly less likely to be true.
In her defense, Delicious Tacos truly comes across as a sad loser.
"Chuddy Chasers" - absolute gem, made me actually laugh.
Attraction to the political opposite as a sexual pairing, often "Hate Fucking" or a sense of wanting to conquer or be dominated is well known by anyone who's frank about their time getting around.
I think there's a much more basic reason for why right wing men "go after" left wing women, and that's because that's the women who are available to them. Single women vote almost 2/3's for the Democrats, and the remaining 1/3 probably live in deep red areas. Most of the online right lives in or near major metros, so most of the women they encounter lean left. If you live in LA or NY how many conservative ladies are you going to encounter?
Had that exact same thought. German west-urban dude in my early thirties here. I imagine Germany to be somewhat different from the US, but it is basically what you wrote. Most, what I like to call "normie" women, tend towards the left or rather toward the anti-right sphere. It is like a Pavlovian reflex, which makes it sorta easy to screen them out, but dayum, lemme tell you, not a lot left (pun not intended) after that. The majority, if not all, of good looking conservative or rather non-normie women are already married. With the normies it is a gamble. Because behind the political stuff are still just boy and girl. Romantic relationships are difficult enough in 2024, the political divide is just another hurdle on top. On the off chance I might sound salty, I encourage everyone to just keep on keeping on. That is what I do. Desperation is temporary and suffering optional. Easier said than done, believe you me, I've been thru that wringer, but what else is there? Give up and submit to the Zeitgeist? No. Life is a losing game. Without passion, you are already dead. Or so I tell myself, BUT, here and there, it helps. Keep on keeping on.
> Right-wing men pursue left-wing women
Drawn to the purple hair, crappy dress code, and condescending moralising and sneering?
betrayed -1980
from IMDB An FBI agent (Debra Winger) posing as a combine driver becomes romantically involved with a Midwest farmer (Tom Berenger) who lives a double life as a white supremacist.
also
only women and leftists think "social power" is a real thing