WOMEN AT FAULT FOR POLITICAL DIVIDE: MARRY A MAGA MAN!
Ridiculous concern trolling by The Washington Post's editors, too cowardly to put a byline for the author, really showcases how #incel grievance has become normalized.
They argue *someone will have to compromise *(meaning women) or else marriage rates will tumble. I think women may have already found their own alternative.🤔
@shekinahcancook@ParanoidFactoid You may be making a valid point here and I commend you for it. However, Neanderthals were sophisticated in their time and many of us in Europe are still carrying that latent DNA. #neanderthals
@shekinahcancook@chattan@ParanoidFactoid
Mencken wrote
"It serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters of the land, led by a fanatic, rid of sense and devoid of conscience. " From The Monkey Trial. 1925 or thereabouts.
Well worth reading about if you don't know about it. #TeachingEvolution
@ParanoidFactoid It's downright bizarre to talk about political divisions as if they're merely subcultural affiliations. Patriarchy is a core conflict. It is obviously self-destructive to enter a relationship with someone who believes you should not have any autonomy. It's a surprise anyone would be willing to enter into a relationship with a reactionary man.
@foolishowl@ParanoidFactoid What this article tells me is what we already knew: Young men need to get their shit together and stop blaming their problems on other people or they'll die alone and unloved.
@foolishowl As the graph shows, the point of the article is this political divide has resulted in a relationship divide too. So there are very few, if any, women choosing reactionary men. And presumably the reverse too. Notably absent from the analysis are LGBTQ+ people engaging in cross political relationships. Like, where are the Log Cabin men with Pride marching partners in that stat? But, as the authors note by omission, this is about marriage and gay people don't get married. Do they?🤪
@hankg@OlDude82@ParanoidFactoid@foolishowl How large is that subculture? Could it simply be that conservative gay is little more than a rounding error? I looked for membership numbers for Log Cabin and all I found was "the largest" which says nothing.
I dislike that this is talked about as a "difference of opinion" rather than as the major cultural and interpersonal difference it actually is.
I guess "Some women won't marry the men who hate them and would like to see them punished for being independent" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Interesting it's only this cultural divide too. I don't see headlines like "Christians won't marry Muslims", or "NY stock brokers won't marry rural farmers".
I'm not sure how much they really believe it, and how much it's an act. But they portray themselves as surprised that anyone would hold them personally ethically responsible for the political positions they take
They pretended that politics is all just a big thought experiment, not something that risks real people's lives
I'm not just saying politicians do that. I'm talking about regular average Joe type people that I know
There's also the fact that "the humble farmer" is imagery from a very different time, but it's still used pretty much as a dog whistle all the time by Conservatives.
I live in the agriculture capital of the Western hemisphere, California's Central Valley. "Farmers" are big, rich land owners. They're not poor. The immigrant laborers they hire are poor. Because of the farmers.
the whole "it's women's fault for not marrying incels" reminds me of the days of social promotions in south carolina. basically, if you failed a grade in school twice, they promoted you anyway to keep you somewhat in the same age group.
"rewarding" incels for their failed behavior is a horrible take.
if they want to have a healthy relationship with a woman, they need to treat women like an equal and a human being, not something they "deserve" no matter what.
@hannu_ikonen@ParanoidFactoid I don't think there's even any conservatives I at least think are kinda hot and could reasonably hatefuck. They're all ugly too
A couple points here. First, this is not anonymous. Every newspaper has an editorial board that writes editorials. These are different from op-eds, which should in almost all cases, have named authors. The members of the Washington Post's editorial board are listed at the end of the article.
I have rarely found editorials useful. There are, by contrast, a very great many useful op-eds.
But yes, while the editorial makes a few good points, the board seems to have lapsed into traditionalist conservatism with what you characterize as an appeal to "incels" (allegedly involuntarily celibate males who won't stop talking about their "right" to sex from women whom they despise).
I need to go back and look to see if George Will is on that board. Because this absolutely sounds like him.
It is telling that the board cites an American Enterprise Institute survey. The Institute is notoriously right wing, mostly corporate but allied.
@Benfell I'm aware editorial boards often publish unsigned Op-Eds. And yes, the board is public. But let's be honest, publishing this as a collective was an obvious act of cowardice on their part. No one wanted to stick their name to this. I assume.
Add comment