I will admit to you up front I am painting with a broad brush and generalizing a lot. But the general point still stands, and…well…even if you don’t find it agreeable or even good writing, at least it’s better than going to a loud nightclub on a Saturday night, screaming at a girl/guy you’re trying to meet, only to blow $40 on drinks and not get a number!
Aaron Clarey despite his overall intelligence can spout nonsense. Certainly in my family the men voted Liberal and the women voted Conservative.
To be fair to Aaron, whom I admire considerably, the modern liberal doesn’t have much in common with the Liberal of 60 and more years ago.
I notice most conservative Women are Alpha females.That or Females with deep Religious or, community minded Women. Its the betas that are collectivists.
I think it has something to do with the nesting instinct.Creating a personnel family.
Most men who are leftists. Seem to be gay or Betas.Social butterfly’s, including health buffs.
Some in high positions through influence, not endeavour.
I mostly go by Individuals though. Hard to put in easily discernible groups.
Captain writes:
Saturday night, screaming at a girl/guy you’re trying to meet, only to blow $40 on drinks and not get a number!
you sir are a sloooow learner
http://youtu.be/1MnU6p3sGSw
John,
#1. That’s why I said I was generalizing. Your one familial experience is an exception.
#2. Tell me how it was nonsense.
Dude, your looking for love of your theory in the wrong place. A woman’s blog, a political blog, a right leaning blog, an extreamly popular woman’s right leaning blog that has a legion of female followers. A lot of women think like this but are afraid to voice lest they be thought unseemly.
This might be to do with security, which women tend to value more than men do. Just a wild guess, but maybe 60 years ago conservatism felt cosy and stable, while leftism seemed adventurous and all that. Nobody really associates the left with libertarianism now, but it could have been different back in the day. You know, because of beatniks and stuff.
I often like your material, Captain, but you are indeed painting with a broad brush here. A vast number of manosphere men, while perhaps conservative-minded when it comes to self-reliance and good economic policies, don’t seem that keen on practicing the family values that a civilization needs to survive and thus are not too fond of conservative women. We won’t get abortions to save them from the ‘burden’ of fatherhood, for one thing, and for another, we like our men to have ‘oneitis.’
Related?
The situation is a little more complicated than The Captain makes out. There have been interesting studies which show that women like to have a very masculine independent male as the father of their child but would prefer a beta male to raise the child and support the family. Possibly because those very masculine independent males aren’t particularly interested in settling down with one woman.
Ran into an interesting ethics site which was investigating what was important to self proclaimed Libertarians, Conservatives and Liberals (in the current pejorative sense). The Libertarians were the most rational of the 3 groups and and this sense the most “masculine”. They were the least interested in fairness as a virtue. The Liberals were the most emotional of the groups and were most in favor of group decisions and obsessed with fairness to the extent that they were horrified by the mere existence of the poor in a rich society. They were also the least likely to believe in individual responsibility.
A relationship between a Libertarian alpha male and Libertarian alpha woman would likely be an interesting but fractious one. It certainly wouldn’t be boring. Liberal alpha females like Liberal beta males to dominate, but when they’re ovulating they’re likely to find a Libertarian alpha male in a bar to impregnate them.
Considering the degree that individuals of both sexes differ makes such a simplistic categorization of men being conservative and women being liberal impossible to support. There’s some support for the observation that the more muscular a male happens to be, the more likely he is to be individualist but it’s a weak association. Men with high testosterone levels are far more aggressive and individualistic than men with low testosterone levels and testosterone levels can predict to some degree what subspecialties in occupations men will chose. Trial lawyers have higher testosterone levels than lawyers who never appear in court. Surgeons have higher testosterone levels than public health physicians. SWAT team members have higher testosterone levels than traffic cops.
We’re overly fond of binary classifications possibly because our two brain hemispheres make such divisions seem so natural. The problem is that we’re dealing with multiple factors which are sometimes correlated but often not. Thus, one can have a very masculine male who’s a rabid socialist because he believes this is the best way for him to attain domination over other people. One can also have a meek mannered beta male who believes in individual rights and opposes the creeping influence of the state. Human personality is far too complex to be cast into binary caricatures. Even multidimensional measures of personality only capture the state of an individual at a particular instant in time.
Isn’t this the same guy who blogs about “going on man strike” and refusing to work hard or better his position because life isn’t fair or some such excuse? Constantly whining about how terrible women are and sounding like a bitter loser who can’t get a date? Now writing about what “real men” are like? Throwing up a picture of Clint Eastwood and whining about sh*t online doesn’t make you an authority on “real men”.
(And this is coming from a man who appreciates and agrees with the Captain’s opions on a lot of things, including the uselessness of most degrees…)
Check out the hamsters on this thread. Warp 9.
You tell a man that having a lot of men around leads to more violence than if those men happened to be women. That man will immediately agree.
But tell a woman that her kind prefer feel-good socialism – a fact – and the sisterhood goes apoplectic. Doesn’t matter that you clearly stated, for the record, Not All Women Are Like That. You get insults, shaming, even a white knight or two.
It’s all very comical and good for a laugh. Except for the fact that this denial of reality – this dearth of masculinity – is absolutely gutting the squishy remainder of our white western civilizations. Ultimately, the fault lies at the feet of our men, our (my) predecessors, who thought it would be just grand if they gave women, and the feminine imperative, the run of the place. How’s that working out fellas? You like the smell of unrestrained hypergamy?
I’m with Kate, and women like her, who say, “I’d give up my vote, if only I could take them with me.”
Wise words.
Heh, he depicts actors as real men. Is that what they call a Freudian slip?
Real men don’t talk, they do…same with real women.
I find the similarities between masculinists and feminists remarkable:
-the opposite gender is the root of all evil
-marriage is slavery
-children are awful
-the opposite gender needs to be controlled by people like us
-society will then be fixed
Meanwhile, millions of husbands and wives work their way through the emotional peaks and valleys of a long term partnership despite the challenges. They successfully raise children not just by providing material goods but role models of how to maintain relationships. Marriage is not dying but it is transitioning to an institution not held together by social/religious pressure but by successful individual traits that help them choose compatible (not perfect) mates and figuring out what works for them, as a couple.
It’s kinda Darwinian, I suppose. Those nature/nurture traits and behaviours will have a better chance of being passed on. Marriage may indeed become an institution dominated by upper and middle class people. With any luck feminists and masculinists, having few progeny, will have their personality dysfunctions disappear into the genetic dead end pool.
The biggest challenge for the social policy crowd is how to convince those best suited for marriage and child raising to have more kids. I personally think the answer is more economic freedom as debt, net income and housing/living costs are important factors. Big, intrusive government increase cost and takes from the productive to give to the unproductive (welfare and cronyism). Less government, more choice.
This piece is all too typical. It’s why I hate all men, because they stereotype women.
Haha, that’s funny. You stereotype because you hate stereotyping.
That must be some kind of harm reduction logic…
No, Darwinian is what happens when the the feminist social welfare state collapses and reconciles with Mohammed. Enjoy.
I once made the mistake of following a link from instapundit into the dark, disturbing world of masculinists. Ironically, they are almost identical to Islamists that you worry about. One line was something like “never respect a woman only respect her submission”. Usually these types of comments were preceded by or followed by a religious passage. The second most common topic of conversation was how to procure a prostitute. It seems that those who talk like they know all about women don’t have any actual unpaid woman in their life. Most disturbing was one commenter who wanted a hooker but they had to be a young adult because he would feel like punching an older woman hooker in the mouth. These men are either crazy or fools. They are not marriage material. May their DNA RIP.
So “masculinists” is the new “disgusting misogyny”. Yes, very “disturbing”, these objections to the sheocracy. Unpaid women? Go get stuffed, hamster brain (at any rate).
Did you feel a breeze when that one swished over your head?