Evolutionary Explanation as to Why Women Tend to be More Liberal.
In some ways it’s not hard to understand why women tend to be more liberal than men. Indeed, it is also true that effeminate or metro-sexual men also tend to be more liberal. One could argue that liberalism is soft and feminine(matriarchal or nanny-ish) while conservatism is hard and masculine(patriarchal or guardian-ish). It could well be that women tend to be kinder, gentler, and more compassionate; therefore, they feel more at home in the world of liberalism whose values are tolerance, inclusion, and so on. Also, liberals and the Democratic Party have been more involved in expanding opportunities for women in fields that had been the domain of men. Since women had to challenge the male-dominated order, it’s understandable that women gravitated to the Democrats. As women gained more independence and economic power, they wanted to consolidate and expand their power, and they found the Democratic Party to be their natural base.
Women were likely to be more affected because women are naturally more likely to follow orders of The Great Authority and go with the flow(due to evolutionary development). The feminist narrative is that all the women spontaneously and individually rose up, demanded ‘liberation’, and brought about the New Order. In fact, this is a lot of crock. Women had disadvantages in the 50s and 60s, but they were not oppressed. And, things were changing naturally because of the great rise in affluence, opportunities, and possibilities made possible by technology. Women would have achieved more advantages and opportunities, feminism or no feminism. What feminism did was to instill in the minds of women that they were being terribly oppressed by THE GREAT EVIL MALE(mostly white). The feminist grand narrative said that women realized this, figured out what must be done, and they all got together to start a grass roots movement–and they just all happen to realize at the same time that Betty Friedan and her Ugly Hag Sisters were right about everything! In fact, feminism was a top-down affair. It was not the rise of the oppressed, the poor, and downtrodden. It was the ideology imposed and pushed by rich, powerful, deranged, and crazy Jews at the top in NY, LA, and in the academia. Many women bought into this because they naturally tend to be less skeptical, confrontational, and questioning than men. Also, the hook was that women, by submitting to the tyranny of Big Sister, were being liberated from men–just like workers were fooled by communism that they were being liberated from evil capitalism; communism too was a revolution engineered from the top, not really understood by the people at the bottom. As a result, many women bought into the feminist narrative: they were being liberated from evil male patriarchy, and they did it on their own, which is to say they freely, naturally, and inevitably came to worship Betty Friedan as the savior of all the Sisters in the world. Yes, it was all very natural, not artificial–as in being manipulated and browbeaten by the mainstream media and entertainment dominated and controlled by the left-wing Jews. We can find this crockpot narrative in Jane Campion’s worthless dimwit adaptation of the rich and ironic Henry James novel "Portrait of a Lady"; the stupid movie begins with a bunch of modern women gathered together as flaky New Age pod people zombies. (You won’t find a strong-willed Camille Paglia among that sorry looking group). Or, you can find this sort of narrative in Toni Morrison’s "Paradise". Gag!!!! Though all these feminist tracts pretend to offer freedom and liberation to women, but what they really do is call on women to submit to the new authority of Big Sisterhood. It’s not about individual liberation but ‘group liberation’. A woman is told that she can be liberated from the Evil Male Order only if she joins the Big Sister Order. It’s kind of like Christians or Muslims saying you can be saved from pagan tyranny only by submitting to Christian or Islamic tyranny. It’s like Idi Amin telling his people that they can be saved from white man’s imperialism only if they submit to his uga-buga African tyranny. The simple fact of the matter is that women are inherently less individualistic than men and more in need of group inclusion, approval, and acceptance. So, feminist liberation is really just another form of submission.
Of course, there is a problem with feminist tribalism as stated above. Women on their own cannot sustain a community. Swedes, Chinese, or Eskimos on their own can last forever as long as the men and women in those groups produce offsprings ad infinitum. But, women on their own or men on their own cannot sustain themselves beyond the life spans of the members. The core unit of(or unity within)society is Man and Woman, not All-Women-Society or All-Men-Society. A single man and a single woman can produce offsprings, create a family, and serve as the basis for a large future community. Women on their own can only practice lesbianism which doesn’t get them anywhere reproductive-wise. This was the problem of radical feminism, which is why its impact was limited. Too many women were naturally attracted to men and wanted to be part of a family than to the Sisterhood. Many women felt in their hearts–even if their minds had been told differently–that their main loyalty should be to their Man and Children. Radical feminists hissed at this and seethed with contempt, and called women who settled for home life ‘traitor bitches’, ‘slaves’, or ‘whores’. As radicals took over the feminist movement, it became less and less relevant and appealing to more women. Feminism just sounded shrill and puritanical(like some conservatives today who want to drive out all moderates).
But, feminism wasn’t just eclipsed by the bio-cultural need on the part of women for romance and family life. Because feminism tended to be puritanical in world saturated with pop culture, many within the younger generation were bound to rebel against their feminist-oriented mothers who insisted on rigid and drab ideological purity. The rise of black hip-hop culture especially confounded the feminists. On the one hand, it represented everything feminists hated–macho male attitudes and women-as-whores–, but it was black culture, and feminists were not supposed to criticize or condemn black culture as such would have been deemed as ‘racist’. When the main ‘misogynists’ of rock were heavy metal white guys, feminists attacked them tooth-n-nail. But, feminists couldn’t muster enough courage to go all out and attack rap music and hip-hop; as ugly and hateful as most of this music was, the leftist narrative said they were expressions of the ‘disenfranchised’ filled with ‘righteous rage’. Since white and Jewish feminists couldn’t go after rap and hip-hop, they wished that black feminists would, and some did. But, most didn’t because blacks–women as well as men–believed in sticking together. And, though rap degraded women, many black women were proud that a Black Thang was gaining such power, force, and popularity in America and around the world. Also, many black women distrusted white and Jewish leftists as spoiled, bratty, whiny, privileged bitchass fools making bullshit complaints when they had it so good. Also, black women didn’t like the part in feminism about race-mixing because black women were getting BY FAR the worst end of the deal. Non-black men didn’t like black women, so black women could only hope to link up with black men. But, many black men happened to be criminal, useless, dangerous, unreliable. Worse, well-educated fancy Negro males often seemed to go with white females. This made many black women feel bitter, which is why even the best educated and richest black women were deliriously happy when OJ Simpson got the ‘not guilty’ verdict for killing ‘that white whore’.
Anyway, radical feminism was too crazy and it was also upended by the rise of black rap and hip-hop which transformed the generations–of all ethnic and racial groups–since the late 80s into macho-thug-wanna-be’s or skankass-ho-wanna-be’s. Also, the fact is too many women wanted to meet guys and settle down and have a family. Only radical feminists wanted to spend their entire lives hanging around Women’s Studies Department(or English Department which became the same thing) with other ugly haggish looking or lesbian women without humor. Not all feminists were of this Stalinist Big Sister ilk; some were genuinely independent, individualistic, and original. But, we are talking of generalities here. It must also be said too many women sought to succeed in the free enterprise and corporate economy, and whatever their political ideology they had to make peace with capitalism. (It may be that many women are into ‘gay marriage’ and other radical causes because of pangs of guilt for having ‘sold out’ to the ‘male-dominated’ ‘patriarchal’ capitalist-corporate order. The most successful people tend to be ones who are most educated, and the most educated also happen to be the most indoctrinated by the Left. So, this creates a contradiction in the hearts and minds of the most successful. They’ve been intellectually molded to be left-wing, much more so than your average American, YET, as the best educated people, they climb to the top in the capitalist-corporate order. This can only lead to a sense of guilt, self-loathing, or obligation. Since they betrayed leftist ideals by succeeding in the capitalist order, they must make amends by supporting leftist agendas like ‘gay marriage’ and multi-culturalism.)
So, the tactics of feminism changed. It went from hag-witch-Stalinism to big-hen-Oprahism. The iron-clawed Big Sisterhood had sought militancy and demanded women to join the war, get in line, ‘man’ the trenches, and be very angry and nasty(and hysterical 24/7). Though women have a groupthink mentality, this form of feminism was too unappetizing, off-putting, and crazy. It ended up alienating a lot of women. This is the danger of any ideology or organization. Members who happen to be most ruthless, strong-willed, committed, and bullying–fanatics and the radicals–take over the movement and turn it into an asylum. What happened to feminism is similar to what had happened to the SDS in the 1960s. For various reasons, this kind of radicalized feminism became less and less relevant.
Yet, the need for groupthink and shared-emotions remained among women as it was hardwired into their DNA.
This aspect of womanhood is inborn but also socially cultivated. Boys are more likely to play at games where they clash with one another; boys play together by playing against one another, with each boy trying to be king-of-the-hill. (Even male bonding arises from male butting.) Though girls also play sports, girls prefer to do girly things and these activities bond the girls together emotionally and socially. Consider playing with dolls or comparing clothes. There is a spirit of competitiveness among girls and women, but it’s not so brutal and blatant as among boys and men. There is more camaraderie than competition among girls and women whereas there’s more competition than camaraderie among boys and men. Girls like to have slumber parties. Girls often hug one another and speak in cutesy tones. They love to giggle together. Most women are huggy-tuggy and higgly-giggly. Even many feminists are like this. In highschool, you often see girls greeting one another by hugging and goo-goo chit-chatting. All that ‘oh, that’s sooooo cute’ crap and etc.
Boys don’t act this way. Boys and men are always measuring each other up. No matter how civilized and peaceful the human race may have become, boys and men are always thinking, "I wonder if I can kick that guy’s as". This goes back to evolution. In most species, females don’t fight one another for the right to mate with the males. No, males fight one another to for the right to mate with the females. So, males go head to head against one another while the females all huddle together and wait to see who is the winner.
The fact that sports are dominated by blacks, that white boys are afraid of black boys in the schools and streets, and that Obama won the majority of white female vote all show that black males are winning the war-among-men-for-the-right-to-mate-with-the-top-female. Since white females are the most prized in our society, their sexual tastes and behavior are the best barometers of which males are winning the war-for-sex. Black males are whupping the white males. What’s truly pathetic is that even white males are increasingly becoming pussified and welcoming the victory of the black males. More and more white males are becoming metro-sexualized and ‘faggot-ized’, and these males are willingly accepting their pussyboy status in the new order.
So, Ken Burns, a dorky and ‘faggoty-ass’ white liberal boy made the documentary on "Jack Johnson" which celebrates the big strong negro who beat up white men, destroyed white male pride, and took white women. Ken Burns wasn’t in any way offended or threatened by Johnson and other such black males because he has no white male pride to defend. He is a white liberal pussyboy, and it’s as though his testicles have been cut off from birth. Of course, Ken Burns and other such white boy liberals convince themselves that their respect for guys like Jack Johnson is all about sympathizing with a people who’d been mistreated, exploited, and oppressed in the past. There is an element of truth in this because black people were discriminated and humiliated in demeaning ways in the past. But, this white liberal male rationale misses the larger picture because blacks are not just another race. They are the stronger, more aggressive, and more dangerous race. Though whites used their technological and organizational superiority in the past to keep down the black man, the black man is now using his fist and penis to beat down and humiliate the ‘white boy’ in a world where whites are not allowed to use their racial advantages for their own racial interests and survival. Whites on the Right have pride and are willing to fight for the most fundamental things for men of any race–their land and women. But, white males on the Left have been pussified and think it’s noble to kiss the negro’s ass and work against their own racial interest. (Generally, white liberals can play this self-loathing game because they happen to be wealthy and live in safe neighborhoods, which means they never really suffer the consequences of their stupid ideas. In other words, Ken Burns isn’t living in some Negro area in Philadelphia or Atlanta but in a mostly white, safe, and wealthy college town or fancy part of the city.)
Anyway, the female mindset is what it is because evolution made it that way. Women are more likely to be group-oriented, more likely to be conformist, more likely to follow, more likely to submit, more likely to be huggy-tuggy and higgly-giggly. So, women are more likely to bend with whatever wind that happens to be prevalent. So, my argument is that women have turned more liberal not out of their own rebellious volition but because the elite cultures of this nation have been taken over by liberals and leftists. Since those with the POWER have spread liberal ideas and values, women were likely to fall for liberalism more than men were likely to. Women are more liberal because they are more conformist, not because they are more rebellious. People may not notice this because liberalism, leftism, feminism, and other such -isms are supposed to be anti-normative, counter-cultural or counter-mainstream, and so on. So, there is the AURA of rebelliousness, individualism, and independence attached to the Left. But, look carefully, and these ideas didn’t arise from womankind by independent thought, rational inquiry, or maverick attitude.
No, leftists took over the TOP ECHELONS of power and then used their great power in media, academia, and culture to IMPOSE their agenda of correctness on people through schooling, pop culture, serious culture, news and information, etc. The Left often gave up on making rational arguments but used moral bullying, witch hunts, political correctness, ostracism, and threats of various kinds. The Left cooked up an entire vocabulary where people could be denounced for their ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘anti-semitism’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘Tacophobia’, etc. Of course, there have always been crazy and extreme bigots and lunatics on the Right(and the Left). But, the Left tried to snuff ALL debate. So, even if a good, decent, and serious person like James Watson said he wasn’t optimistic about Africa because blacks are less intelligent, the Liberal Media denounced and destroyed him as a so-called ‘racist’. Watson didn’t call a black person a ‘nigger’. He didn’t say blacks are apes. No, he said what he believed as a scientist based on a lifetime of research and study. And, he would have rationally and seriously explained his statement IF the so-called rational liberals and leftists were willing to sit down and let him explain. But, no, the liberals just labeled him a ‘racist’ and said he must not say such things, and he must be fired and locked up in a funny farm. End of Debate.
So, even though the Left still maintains the AURA of being contrarian, rebellious, skeptical, and challenging of orthodoxy–and it’s true enough that historically, the Left stood for new ideas and freedoms–, the Left today has the most power in the institutions that matter the most; the Left controls the mainstream. The Left deems some ideas too dangerous even to discuss or debate–even if or especially if the Right can rationally and scientifically demonstrate that the Leftist assumptions are false–, and prefers to clamp down research and discussion altogether.
The Left is now in the position to defend the Holy Lie against the ‘ugly truth’. There was a time when the Right was the defender of the Holy Lie whereas the Left stood for the ‘the truth, however ugly and distressing it might be’. When Darwin arrived on the scene, the religious right defended the idea of God and his creations. Some people on the Right actually thought Darwin had a good theory and good argument, but even such people wanted to snuff our Darwinism because the ‘ugly truth’–that noble man descended from hairy apes–was deemed too dangerous to the moral and social order; so, these men did their best to maintain the Holy Lie of God’s existence and His Creation of the world and especially of Man. (Given the rise of Darwinist Nazism, perhaps the religious right did have a point, at least in the sense that even true ideas can be distorted and misused by extremists.)
Nowadays, the Left is in the position of defending the Holy Lie. They are totally invested in the idea that races don’t exist, that all races–if indeed such did exist–are equal(in intelligence, temperance, physical strength, etc), and that most differences between men and women are social than biological; as such, the Left cannot accept new data that seems to indicate otherwise.
The Left, like the religious right in the 19th century, may have a point in embracing the Holy Lie. We live in a diverse society, and we would like to believe that ‘we are all created equal’. We have enough social and cultural problems as it is, so why exacerbate the problem by revealing the uncomfortable truths about racial and sexual differences? But, truth is truth, and all people committed to the truth must accept it. Also, avoiding this truth can be even worse and lead to even direr results. For example, we know that blacks are the most dangerous and thuggish race. So, an immigration policy that brings in many blacks is not good for a nation. If a nation bases its immigration policy on equality of races, it might unwisely bring in a lot of black Africans, Carribean Negroes, and other problematic people. Just look at the problems that black African and Carribean Negroes are causing all over Europe. Having a few Negroes who may be absorbed in due time is no problem. But, large numbers of Negroes is bound to cause social chaos. Just look at American cities or suburbs where there are too many Negroes. Same thing happens over and over. So, if speaking truthfully about race can lead to ‘racist attitudes’, ignoring racial truths altogether can lead to racial suicide. I would rather be racist and survive as a people in a stable, healthy, and functional civilization than be racially suicidal by pretending that blacks are just like whites, letting them grow in numbers and bring down civilization itself as they’ve done all over Africa, the Carribean, US cities, and in South Africa. By the way, if white and Jewish liberals are so concerned about Negroes, why they all be living in affluent mostly white neighborhoods? This is true especially of the rich liberal Jews. They talk the talk but never walk the walk.
My guess is the Left clings to the issue of evolution not mainly because of the fear of the Christian Right but because of the desperate need to remind itself that it is still on the side of science. We know that the Left’s rejection of human races is unscientific. (Indeed, evolution is not possible without the creation of races. Development of new species can only follow the preliminary development of new races.) Because of the Holy Lie that pervades much of human sciences, the Left has been losing ground in the scientific debate. Even liberal and left-leaning scientists increasingly stress the importance of genetics in the talents and behavior of individuals and racial groups. So, whenever a liberal rationalist says stuff like, ‘race is a myth constructed by society’, he is either lying through this teeth or he is desperately trying to fool himself with a politically correct lie. Though liberals and leftists take pride in their anti- or non-religious outlooks, they too grew up surrounded by quasi-religious iconography and a spiritualist reading of history with their own secular versions of demons, angels, gardens of Eden, Noah’s ark stories, prophets, saviors, messiahs, sins, redemptions, etc. In the liberal secular-spiritual telling of history, the Americas and black Africa were Edenic gardens where men lived in harmony with nature. These people were not spoiled by the evil hierarchies that arose mainly in Western societies. The great Fall took place when devilish whites invaded and brought with them the evils of slavery, disease, exploitation, feudalism, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, sexism, ‘homophobia’, coca-cola, and worst of all, ‘racism’. The story of the slave trade is like several Biblical stories bundled together–Noah’s Ark, slavery under the Egyptians, Babylonian captivity, etc. Then, you have the prophets and saints in Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, Dubois, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X. And you finally have the Messiah in Obama, the half-white, half-black dude who’s supposed to be 1/4 King, 1/4 Kennedy, 1/4 Malcolm X, and 1/4 Oprah.
And what about the whites? Since white folks are stained with the Original Sin of slavery, imperialism, colonialism, spreading-disease-ism, sexism, feudalism, capitalism, ‘racism’, coca-cola, and whatever else that the stupid academia dreams up next, the ONLY way they can be saved is by (1) relinquishing their white identity, pride, and power (2) begging forgiveness from ‘people of color’ (3) going for ‘jungle fever’ among white girls and acting pussyboy-ish among white males (4) and doing everything to perceive‘people of color’ as moral superiors. So, we have many stupid white women with shrugged shoulders worshiping someone as ridiculous as Oprah, the billionaire mammy. Or, we have all those wimpy white boys peeing in their pants and weeping with joy over the ascendancy of Obama. It’s as though white folks have no moral worth unless they look up to and gain approval from ‘people of color’, especially from blacks.
Problem for many liberals–and even increasingly dorky conservatives–has been that there aren’t many decent blacks they can look up to though they’ve been waiting for such a creature for a long time. People like Oprah and Obama understand and know how to exploit this ‘spiritualist’ need of white liberalism. Man is by nature religious. Those who reject religion seek spiritual sustenance from something else, and liberalism, we must admit, is really just another religion with its icons, holy texts, sacred narratives, and prophecies.
There is no other way one can understand a phenomenon as phony and stupid as Obama-ism. It’s been possible because white liberals fooled themselves that Obama is The One, just like stupid Christian Right folks have fooled themselves that most televangelists are good decent Christians.
Anyway, the point is that white liberals are only selectively rationalistic. They are FOR SCIENCE only on topics and matters that serve their ‘spiritualist’ world view. When a reality like human races stand in their way, they go into witch hunting mode. They carry out their own version of the Spanish Inquisition and don’t care how many careers and lives they ruin or destroy. Of course, they wrap their views in the language of science, but it’s always very selective.
To be sure, the far right has given them good ammo because the race science of Nazism was so miserable, false, and idiotic. Of course, the notion that races don’t exist or that races are all equal is just as baloney, but in our society of egalitarian-Christian-democratic-Marxist ethos the idea of racial equality is an easier sell than even the valid theories on the existence of races and racial differences. In a nation like Brazil or the US, people simply don’t want to discuss racial differences because we put such a premium on everyone getting together. Of course, blacks haven’t gotten along well with non-blacks, but we don’t want to discuss why this is so: (1) Blacks are physically stronger and more aggressive, therefore a threat to other races and (2) blacks are less intelligent, and so tend to achieve less.
Anyway, let us return to female psychology of conformism, and why that’s been crucial as to why women tend to be more liberal. If indeed most women have a group-centered or conformist psychology, the majority of them will go along with whatever the Big Sister(Left) or Big Mother(Right) says. So, the real question is who has control of the schools and media: Big Sister or Big Mother? Friedan, Steinem, Ireland, and others have been Big Sisters. Phyllis Schlafly has been a Big Mother(or Big Wife).
Why have Big Sisters gained greater influence than the Big Mothers?
They had an initial advantage in the 1960s because a new era was dawning, and women were demanding that more doors be open to them. But, it’s also true that most women found the radical feminists crazy and extreme. So, why did liberalism and even leftism gain the upper-hand among women in the long run? We have to look at culture and ideas, both high and low. We know that women entered the academia in ever greater numbers in the post-war era. Today, women outnumber men on campuses. In other words, increasing numbers of women came under the influence of professors, 90% of whom are liberal to leftist(and often radical and Jewish). Since girls are more likely to conform to figures of Authority, young women were more likely to be influenced by academic and intellectual theories in higher education pushed by the Professoriate. There was, of course, another element that ensured that more white women than white men would fall under the influence of leftism. A white woman has a place of ‘victimhood’ within the leftist spectrum. Though white, she can claim nobility as victim of the evil white males. There is no such place for white men–unless one happens to be gay–in the leftist spectrum. The ONLY option for a white guy within leftism is to loathe oneself, hate one’s own people, despise one’s own ‘privilege’, and actively work against one’s own interest. A white male can succeed in leftism only by seeking to fail. To be sure, white liberal males argue that they are only trying to make things equally fair for ALL people; but, look all around and who can deny that liberalism and leftism are destroying the white race altogether, and stuff like affirmative discrimination targets white males for their race.
Anyway, white women, because of their naturally conformist personality and a morally advantageous place for them at the table of leftism, were likely to come under the influence of liberals. (Some people will argue that women are more liberal because they are naturally more compassionate and caring, but a woman’s sympathy can be familial or tribal as opposed to being universal. A woman’s capacity for compassion may be stronger than that of a man, but it may also be more emotional and less idealistic or abstract. She may have great love for her family and children but almost no feeling for strangers. So, woman’s compassion isn’t necessarily more liberal; it can be the basis for even greater conservatism. After all, a mother bear or lion cares for HER young, not those of others.)
But, it wasn’t just the influence of higher education and intellectual culture. There was also pop culture. Though serious culture and pop culture are miles apart, there is a very complex inter-relationship between the two especially since the demise of the high-brow vs low-brow dichotomy in the 60s. Many ‘serious’ artists and thinkers have taken their cues form pop culture; think of people like Susan Sontag and Zizek. Also, pop culture is largely controlled by corporations, and corporations hire people who graduated from top colleges to manage and run the industry. So, the producers, designers, writers, and directors of TV shows are actually the products of the elite university system. These talented people work in pop culture because they want to make lots of money and ‘succeed in life’, but they are also products of leftist higher education. As such, they’ve been influenced by the leftist culture and ideals so pervasive in the academia. Though they work in the arena of capitalism, they are ‘spiritual Marxists’–just as past generations of capitalists were spiritually Christian. Andrew Carnegie loved making money, but his actions and deeds were also shaped by Christian ethos. In the realm of higher education Marx is the new Jesus, even if or especially because of the fall of communism. With the Fall of Communism, Marxism has been freed from the murderous regimes it helped create. It is now a form of spirituality. Suppose an iron-fisted Christian theocracy collapsed. Would that be the end of Christianity? No, Christianity might even become stronger as a free flowing spiritual force. The fall of Christian Rome only made Christianity stronger in the long run, and Islam will be as powerful as ever if the theocracy in Iran crumbles. It’s like in "Star Wars" when Darth Vader kills Ben Kenobi. Turned into pure spirit, Kenobi becomes even more powerful against the Empire.
So, even though pop culture is seemingly stupid and apolitical, it is not created by dumb people but by smart people with certain ideological convictions. These smart and well-educated people know they are creating, marketing, and selling crass mass culture. They feel somewhat guilty for working in such a greedy business. Some people in the industry make the money but set aside time and profit for worthier artistic projects. Orson Welles worked this way. He would do a lot of stupid films, make money, and then work on his personal projects. John Cassavettes worked this way too. Some people make money in pop industry but make huge donations to leftist causes to redeem their greedy souls.
Others seek to redeem the crass material itself as an instrument for gaining ‘cultural hegemony’. The trick here is to give the masses the crap they want but infuse it with politically correct and/or ‘progressive’ messages. So, ‘Shawshank Redemption’ teaches people to Love-the-Noble-Negro. Or, many stupid sitcoms teach kids to Respect-the-Gay-Boy. (These pro-gay agenda sitcoms ought to be called shit-cums.) And, this has had a huge impact on how people, especially the young, see and regard society. Gradually, new ‘norms’ arise based on what people see on TV. TV has long been the Mind Control Machine, all the more dangerous because it’s largely been monopolized by the left-liberal cabal, mostly Jewish. A term like ‘homophobia’ gained currency only because TV repeated it over and over. So, many young people have come to think that opposing the Gay Agenda is ‘homophobic’. They use such terms without thought, just as people use ‘racism’ without thought. Women are more likely to be influenced by such things because women tend to be more conformist. This is all the more complicated because leftism and liberalism promotes itself as non-conformist and pro-diversity. There was indeed a time when liberalism championed the freedom of individuals to be different and think his/her own thoughts. But, today’s non-conformism is just another form of conformism. It’s not a skeptical person or a maverick’s ideal or concept of eccentricity but an all-pervasive dogma of ‘diversity’ where people are not even allowed to question the dark sides and disadvantages of The Agenda. The Gay Agenda says you must approve of and accept ALL ASPECTS of homosexuality. It’s not just about need for tolerance but about compelling people to accept a monstrosity like ‘gay marriage’. It’s not just about making things fair for people of all races in the US but about using discrimination against whites to promote the interests of non-whites and Jews; it’s about opening up our borders to millions of illegal migrants every year. Though the stated goals are said to be liberal, the methods and results are actually radical, repressive, and destructive. It’s not about making an argument for organic diversity but forcing radical diversity down all of our throats.
And, there’s a fundamental contradiction within liberalism and leftism. On the one hand, they say we need diversity because different races, cultures, sexes and sexual orientations, and ethnic groups have something unique and distinct to bring to the table. In other words, whites cannot do what blacks can, blacks can’t offer what the Chinese can, Chinese are not good at what Jews are good at, and so on. BUT, if you try to discuss the differences among races and cultures, leftists and liberals tell you to shut up because to dwell on such differences is ‘racist’. And, in order to win hearts and minds, they hide their repressive tyranny behind gooey rhetoric that gushes about ‘how we are becoming more intelligent, more beautiful, more moral, more spiritual, more everything through greater diversity and race-mixing’. If so, why do so many liberal Jews support the Jewish state of Israel? (Why not allow more Arabs into Israel so Jews and Arabs can all mix and create a better race?) If so, why do so many affluent Jewish liberals segregate themselves from Hispanic, working class white, and black communities? And, is Peru or Brazil really more intelligent and beautiful than Sweden or Norway because of greater racial diversity? Is your average Mexican–a mix of white and Indian blood–more intelligent than a pure-blooded Chinese or Irishman? But, all this gushy liberal goo goo talk goes a long way with children and with women who tend to be more gullible and conformist. Though feminists bitch about how women are associated with children–as mother/child or in mental/emotional capacity–, it is a sad fact that women and children are the easiest to fool with gushy wushy talk.
Due to the nature of women, it’s not difficult to understand the great power that Oprah has over them. Oprah is both her own person and a tool of the liberal Jews. She is also the object of worship of white women who espouse the secular spiritualism of liberalism. They feel that they can be redeemed and saved through Faith in Oprah. She is their Marian Luther Queen. But, Oprah is bigger than Martin Luther King in some ways. MLK’s personae was rather one-note–noble saint Negro leader. Oprah offers a much wider variety of goodies to satisfy the spiritual appetites of white liberal women.
Yes, she plays the soulful my-ancestors-were-slaves-but-I-am-so-noble-that-I-forgive-you-white-folks(that is if you kiss my fat black booty and make me a billionaire!) card. But, that alone would have gone only so far. So, she also invites movie stars, stand up comics, rock stars, etc on he show. And, to be ‘intellectual’ once in awhile she has her Book-of-the-Month thing where she invites authors and discusses Art and ‘serious’ matters. What is the impact of all this on womenkind? Huge!!! In 2000, Bush and Gore’s poll numbers went up and down depending on who was on the Oprah show last. And, if Oprah had not called Obama ‘The One’ and had invited Sarah Palin on her show and treated her with much affection, the majority of women might well have voted for McCain/Palin. Women across America didn’t reject Palin mainly because of a few bad interviews or her policy positions. It’s because the Big Sister network in the media–dominated by liberal Jews and fronted by the likes of Oprah, Barbara Walters and The View gang among others–spread the message far and wide that Sarah Palin is ‘creepy’, ‘strange’, ‘not one of us’, ‘crazy’, etc. The message was sent out to women across America that ‘you are strange, stupid, ignorant, and not-one-of-us-cool-liberated-women IF you like or support Sarah Palin.’ Also, many white women had been raised with the notion that blacks are moral superiors to whites, so given the choice between a ‘liberal’ black guy and a conservative white women, many women went with the former. Also, the dominant feminist ideology in the media insinuated over the years that a conservative woman is an Auntie Tom. Since women have been told by the liberal feminist media/academia that they are ‘victims’ of Evil White Male Patriarchy, the notion developed that women can ONLY find freedom and self-worth as liberals. A conservative woman came to be regarded as comparable to Uncle Tom Negro who shuffles before his massuh.
Sarah Palin obviously blew away all those stereotypes. She was a proud, strong-willed, and accomplished woman. She also came from a working-class background. She was proof that conservative women are the best women in America. So, the feminist and liberal media decided to attack her as ‘crazy’ and ‘creepy’. Liberal women, sheepish and conformist despite their conceit of individualism and freedom, bought this Grand Narrative. They flattered themselves that they were so hip, sophisticated, intelligent, intellectual, and so on... unlike that stupid, dumb, crazy, and creepy hick Sarah from Alaska. Especially the powerful liberal Jewish bitches pushed this line; it became SO powerful that even conservative women like Kathleen Parker–dirty fuc*ing stupid bitch–went with Obama. And, Anne Applebaum the Neocon Jewess also went with Obama because, as an ‘intelligent’ and ‘sophisticated’ woman, she didn’t want to be associated with Sarah Palin.
This is all very funny since who can be more All-American and decent than Sarah Palin? Instead, the truly creepy, ugly, trashy, and disgusting hags and bitches like Whoopie Goldberg, Barbra Streisand, Madonna, Barbara Walters, Rosie O Donnell, Roseanne Barr, and Margaret Cho have been promoted as wonderful and decent by the Big Sister media. As a result, females all across America came to believe it must be so.
And, what about Michelle Obama? She’s been an anti-American, anti-white, privileged, entitled, stupid, and shitty bitch all her life. Yet, the Big Sisterhood media whitewashed and promoted her as proud, decent, intelligent, all-American, and accomplished. Here was a woman who got into Princeton through Affirmative Discrimination. She did nothing but bitch and whine about, well, how nicely white liberals treated her!!! Her dissertation was a long whine about ‘I feel like a lonely black turd floating in a sea of whiteness’. That got her into Harvard!!!! Later, she ended up in a job where she raked in $300,000 by promoting Affirmative Discrimination against white people(yes, all in the name of ‘diversity’). Yet, this low-down scum bitch was promoted by the liberal media as America’s New Shining Heroine. And, so many stupid women fell for it. This is so pathetic that I can understand the arguments made by men in the past as to why women’s suffrage is a bad idea.
Anyway, the point is we can understand why women are largely liberal by studying TV, the content of which is indirectly influenced by the academia since the writers, actors, directors, and producers tend to be products of the academia–often Ivy League schools. (Prior to the 60s, many people in movies and pop culture weren’t products of universities but had worked themselves up through an apprentice or on-the-job system. As such, they were less likely to be influenced by ideological correctness taught in elite institutions. Almost all of today’s Hollywood writers, directors, and producers are recruited from top universities.) What kind of shows for women have aired on TV since the late 60s and early 70s? We had stuff like the Phil Donahue show. Donahue was a liberal schmuck, and his show was the template for stuff like Oprah later. Millions of women were glued to this stuff. Donahue was the mainstream pop cultural conduit of intellectual ideas of the Left. Sure, he invited some conservatives on his show too, but his show was tipped 70/30 in favor of liberals and radical leftists. Over time, shows like these were bound to have more impact on women than on men. Paradoxically, stay-at-home wives/mothers might have been more affected because they were home watching TV. Women were made to feel ‘oppressed’, ‘repressed’, ‘aggrieved’, ‘misunderstood’, and so on. Donahue was like a pop cultural version of Ibsen. Instead of Doll’s House, it was Doll’s TV. And, there were a whole bunch of TV docu-dramas about evil men beating up women and about how women can find justice only through Big Government and Sisterhood.
Though women felt ‘liberated’ watching this stuff, they were actually conforming to the New Orthodoxy of Big Sister feminism. These talk shows were more appealing to women than to men because women are naturally more group-oriented(as in the primitive tribal past). I’m not suggesting a strict dichotomy of man-as-individual vs women-as-member-of-group. Surely, men like do stuff together too, and there is much conformism among men too. But, men have a clearer grasp of the distinction between what has individual worth and what has group worth. Because of the softer and gentler ways of women, individuality and group-ness tend not to stand apart from one another in clear outline. The distinction between individualism and group-orientation is solid among men but liquid-like among women. (Though most men are not tough, the toughest individuals are male; as a result, there is the male ideal of the maverick individual. In contrast, women could never be the toughest individuals in society. They always relied on cooperation and the system for their security and power. Indeed, this may explain why Asian-Americans tend to be the most ‘feminine’ of all groups. Asian men, unlike white or black men, cannot hope to the toughest or ‘baddest’ individuals in society. Asian power and pride, even among males, is always dependent on unity and cooperation. In some ways, this may work as an advantage to Asians. Since they know they cannot be #1 as individual toughs, Asians are less likely to waste their energy on trying to be the ‘toughest baddest dude’ in town. So, they hit the books instead and seek success through the System. Asian success in education is akin to rising female success in education. Both Asians and females know they cannot be the toughest/roughest as individuals. They can only make it or advance by working diligently within the system.) As such, they–individuality and group-orientation– morph into one another among womenfolk. Female individuality, for what it’s worth, is greatly shaped by group-think.
This is why the female-ish kind of tyranny can be far more dangerous in some ways. Because of its soft, maternal, and matriarchal nature, the tyrannical elements become wrapped and hidden in warmth and softness. Male-ish tyranny lunges at you and wrestles you to the ground; the brutality of such tyranny is easy to identify. The female-ish tyranny acts as if to embrace and hug you. But, once you’ve fallen into the grip, you’re as helpless as a deer in the winding clasp of a python. (In some ways, this was why communism was more dangerous than Nazism in some ways. The brutal nature of Nazism was plain to see, but the inhuman nature of communism was shrouded in all the talk of ‘universal justice’. Communism was more feminine than Nazism.)
There are two ways women can gain control over men. Gorgeous and sexy women can do as the Sirens did in Greek mythology. Seduce men to their destruction. But, hags have another way of gaining control over men. They act like they want to hug the entire world with love, affection, compassion, and fairness. But in fact, ugly feminists are trying to blanket the whole world under political correctness. This kind of tyranny is represented by the Anna Quindlan the ugly hag and her Big Sister ilk. It’s a soft tyranny which takes away our freedom in the name of ‘compassion’, ‘understanding’, ‘inclusiveness’, and caring for the ‘the children.’ . There was this aspect in Christianity itself, especially with Jesus being somewhat androgynous and there being something funny about the Virgin Mary myth.
Who controls TV and Pop Culture determines what most people think and especially what women think since women tend to be more conformist to the mainstream norm. The mainstream of pop culture has long been dominated by liberals and the left, and as such, women have come to conform more to liberalism.
Of course, pop culture can also go against the interests of the Left since pop culture thrives on giving people what they want, which often goes against what leftists espouse. Pop culture is essentially consumerist, and consumerism is a part of capitalism. Consumerism is also ‘materialistic’, crass, and hedonistic. It can also be nihilistic. Though we think of 60s pop culture as having undermined and destroyed the good solid conservative culture, it also wreaked havoc on the radicals themselves.
Many radicals got too involved in drugs, rock music, movies, and other distractions and lost sight of the revolution itself. Revolutionaries of previous generations didn’t have this problem; they tended to be intellectually more serious and more determined/focused in their objectives. In the 60s, especially with the rise of a separate youth culture, many radicals in the West simply wanted to ‘party to the revolution’ instead of respecting their radical elders who’d paid their dues. It was loud, brash, and fun, but it really went nowhere because they lacked focus and discipline. They were affected by the hedonism and nihilism at the core of pop culture.
Another way consumerist pop culture undermined 60s radicalism is that the great majority of young people preferred the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Hollywood movies, and TV over militant revolution and radicalism. Even radical college students wanted to be movie makers or singer-songwriters than soldiers in the revolution. The Black Panthers were more into posing for photographs, making empty noise, using drugs, and dancing than making revolution.
Feminists were angry at the rise of pornography, the use of women as sex symbols on TV, the popularity of beauty pageants, rock music scene with its studs and groupies, and etc. But, most girls preferred Charlie’s Angels and Wonder Woman–which marketed women(even a powerful women) as sexy and gorgeous creatures.
In the 80s, Madonna arrived on the scene, and the feminists initially had a heart attack. It was only as the 90s came along that feminists decided to make peace with pop culture and try to use it than go against it. So, "Thelma and Louise" embraced the women-as-sex-symbol and guns-are-cool tropes BUT in the name of anti-white-male feminism.
This is how the Left truly became resurgent in the late 80s and 90s. In the 60s and 70s, many leftists had tried to create a new art, personal or popular, that was truer to the spirit of liberation and revolution. But, when most of these experiments were rejected by the masses who preferred Jaws and Star Wars, leftists eventually decided to go for the mass-appeal formulas too, all the while infusing them with ideological content.
Leftist artists all have different origins. Some were ideologues who came around to pop culture while others were pop culturalists who came around to ideology. Since the academia–meeting place of intellectualism and creativity–are liberal or leftist, even non-ideological creative people eventually came around to leftism. My guess is that the Wachowski brothers(of Matrix fame) grew up with stuff like Jaws, Star Wars, and the like. They grew up loving mindless Hollywood junk. But, as they grew up reading film magazines and attended universities, they probably picked up all the leftist and radical notions, poses, and conceits from professors, writers, and artists.
So, there are leftists who really feel disdain for pop culture but see it as a useful tool for shaping popular opinion, and there are pop culture fanatics who later discovered the religion of radical ideology.
In either case, there’s something perverse afoot because it’s a case of anti-capitalist leftists mastering and using the tools of capitalism. The overall effect is conflicted and contradictory. On the one hand, the audience are told that the West and capitalism are bad(at least if controlled by white males), but on the other hand, the audience gets the impression that crass, consumerist, materialist popular culture is the greatest thing since it’s so fun and entertaining. For all their anti-capitalist and anti-corporate message, Matrix movies are great advertisement for capitalist materialism. It offers a narcissistic, vain, rave party revolution. Matrix movies are also a great advertisement for fascist aesthetics since they’ve been greatly influenced by anime and Star War films which were great influenced by the fascist and militarist aesthetics of Leni Riefenstahl and other monumentalist directors.
If you want to control the minds of women, you have to first understand the nature of the female mind. Though women come in all shapes and sizes and in all temperaments and inclinations, certain traits are more common than others. In other words, though there are women boxers, most women don’t go into that sort of thing. And, though there are women fans of Rush Limbaugh, most women don’t like him much, not least because he’s boorish, pushy, aggressive, and fat & ugly.
To understand what most women are like and what they like most, we need think of how they interacted and found happiness in primitive tribal societies long ago. When men went out to hunt, women gathered to work together weaving, collecting food, taking care of each other’s children, chit chatting, gossiping, huddling close together, and all that stuff. Sure, there were bitches, bad girls, and oddballs, but most women were plain-faced go-along types who wanted to be liked, wanted to belong, and wanted to be approved of. This is something that Oprah understands so well, and she cashed in on it big time. And, this is something The View understands as well, though it made the mistake of including crazy bitches on the show. Indeed, notice what happened to the crazy bitches like the fat black whore who turned skinny overnight or Rosie O’Donnell. They got canned by Big Sister Hen Barbara Walters. Though I think Rosie is gross, ugly, and offensive, she was kicked out because she made trouble for The Group. Women don’t like other women making too much trouble, at least within their own roost. So, you never ever see a woman on Oprah show challenging the wisdom of Oprah. And, it’s obvious that Barbara Walters will not tolerate anyone who challenges her authority. And, most women seem to accept the fact that there must be a Big Sister to set the agenda for all the little sisters.
In a primitive tribe, the Big Man was determined by his physical strength; as such, man has a clear-cut understanding of where things stood in terms of hierarchy and what the nature of power was. But, the top matriarch in a primitive tribe wasn’t determined by which woman was the biggest or strongest. Instead, her status was determined by other factors, like age, connection, or some subtle factor. Of course, age mattered a lot for men as well and increasingly became more important as civilizations developed more complex.
But, the point is that the power structure among women tended to be more tyrannical even if less brutal or precisely because it was less brutal than among men. Among men, who-is-on-top was determined by who is toughest. So, the male-dominated order, though brutal, is unstable in the sense that the new kid on the block can become the new king of the hill by pushing off the old one.
In the female order, because power is determined less by such brute strength, it’s harder to challenge and topple the existing authority; power is understood and revered than feared and challenged. Compare Morton Downey Jr. Show with the Oprah Show. On the Morton Downey Show, it was a matter of who could scream or push the loudest. When Downey lost his strength and stamina, his show was toast. Oprah’s power, on the other hand, tends to be more ‘spiritual’ and ‘magical’. She is the Big Hen, the Big Sister. Her authority simply IS; it cannot be challenged.
Ever so clever, Oprah blended the role of the conservative Big Mother with the role of the liberal Big Sister. As such, she became both Big Mother and Big Sister. In time, even conservative women were afraid to challenge her authority since she became Maternal Goddess as well as Powerful Feminist.
If Oprah or her handlers learned one thing from the demise of radical feminism, it’s that most women don’t like being crazy bitches screaming and throwing fits all the time. So, Oprah blended the concept of Big Sister feminist power with Big Mother maternal authority. She became appealing to all women, to liberals but also to many conservatives–even to the dorky boys who are now prevalent at the National Review.
Given this fact, conservatives won’t have much luck with women voters as long as TV is controlled by the left and liberals. Conservative style is to point the finger at you and tell you what to think. Oprah’s style is to suggest that she wants to extend her arms and embrace you and hold your face closer to her massive mammaries. The end result is that you end up sucking on her chocolate teats and being ‘nourished’ with her feelings and ideas.
Conservatives come at you with issues, ideas, and etc. Oprah comes at you with her feelings, bodily warmth, and soulful gaze. Most women go for this kind of crap. This is why Dr. Laura never had much of a chance. Neither does Ann Coulter with most women. Your typical girl sees them as bitches or bad girls. They remember those ‘nasty bitches’ in high school. Dr. Laura reminds them of those mean teachers who assigned too much homework, never graded on a curve, and were always critical and demanding. Such women may have been good teachers but they were never likable teachers. As for Ann Coulter, she reminds most women–who were neither pretty nor ‘popular’–of the crazy bitch who wanted all the attention, wanted to be prom queen, and treated ugly and homely girls with sneer and contempt.
Oprah, in contrast, reminds most women of the kind of teacher they had who was always understanding, kind, gentle, and handing out A’s even to C students. And, Oprah-as-successful-woman makes all those loser women(and most women are loser women) feel like the fat-and-uglies-shall-inherit-the-earth. Even pretty, popular, and successful women like Oprah because the egalitarian ethos of our society remind us that we must be ‘fair and nice’ to all. Pretty women want to prove to others and to themselves that they are not ‘mean bitches’ but nice people. Looking up to Oprah supposedly absolves them of their guilt since Oprah is fat and ugly yet rich and famous–as if to suggest that our society is so wonderful and ‘inclusive’ that even a fat, stupid, ugly black woman can succeed. Oprah is the ultimate Ugly Duckling. So, if rich, pretty, or smart women watch or support Oprah, it means they are good at heart instead of being nasty bitches like Ann Coulter.
On the one hand, our society is very narcissistic and look-oriented. On the other hand, it’s puritanical and egalitarian, suspicious of the idea of superior beauty. This explains why Oprah and millions of women have tried to fool themselves that Oprah is actually a good looking woman. This way, Oprah can be both a member of the plain faced womankind AND a Cinderella story. We’ve also seen this with Sarah Jessica Parker, a truly gross looking Jewish broad. On the one hand, we’ve been told that the ‘beauty myth’ is evil and Nazi-esque. On the other hand, Sarah Jessica Parker has been hailed as a great beauty, a kind of blonde haired Aryan Jewess.
Anyway, if conservatives want more women on their side, they must understand the Big Hen Theory. Ultimately, it’s less a matter of ideology than psychology and personality. Understanding and gaining power over women is really a matter of coming to know what kind of personality/psychology most women have. Most women don’t feel comfortable with a ‘crazy bitch’ like Ann Coulter, ‘bitch bully’ like Dr. Laura, or ‘haughty bitch’ like Phyllis Schlafly. For all the feminist denunciation of motherhood, most women still long for the Big Mother figure, even if or especially if they’ve put off motherhood themselves. Many black women grew up under crazy bitch single mothers and look up to Oprah as the mother-they-wished-they-had. Many white girls grew up under cold, dry, overly intellectual, distant white mothers and look upon Oprah as the warm and kind mammy on whose shoulder they could cry on. Similarly, many liberal and leftist women are into ‘saving the kids around the world’ because they’ve put off motherhood and don’t have kids of their own; their repressed maternal instinct morphs into a social/international agenda of saving All The Children! Oprah touches on all these issues. She is really a big fat ugly charlatan, a disgusting pig, a selfish ruthless bitch, a snake-oil saleswoman, BUT can you blame her for taking advantage of all the stupid people in the world to make her billions? She’s guilty but no more than televangelists who sucker people with all the Jesus-loves-you talk. Oprah Show is televangelism for secular liberal women.
But, no matter how gross and disgusting Oprah is, the truth is people are dumb. Just as feminists eventually learned to accept reality and the game of ‘if you can’t beat em, join em’, isn’t it about time conservatives came up with the same kind of Oprah-esque schtick?
No comments:
Post a Comment