Capt. Capitalism asks why leftists tend to be unattractive. He bases the argument on a study which found that female Republicans tend to look more feminine – and therefore are more attractive to men – than female Democrats.
Captain hypothesizes:
Liberals and leftist in general tend to be lazy. They eschew hard work, they’re afraid of rigor, and this shows in their ideology. ANYTHING to avoid having to support themselves or work an honest day…This means liberals and leftists (just like all humans and animals on this planet) ARE FORCED to compete when it comes to courting and mating, whether they like it or not. However, when I say “compete” I don’t mean, “be lucky enough to be born handsome or pretty.” I mean “work out, stay in shape and make yourself sexy to the opposite sex.”
I’ll stop here to add my own caveats – it is probably best to avoid picturing passive liberals and passive conservatives. Unattractive people fall across the entire spectrum. But we can imagine the person who leads an active anti-establishmentarian lifestyle – which is different from an anti-establishmentarianism of the Right – eschewing the pressures placed on him by human nature. Hard work in every realm of life – why? He questions, at his core, the very nature of competition. And part of that competitive drive is striving to be presentable to society.
And what is the base virtue to which ideologues subscribe? Let’s consider a left-anarchist and the closest thing on the right, the anarchocapitalist type. I won’t dare call them libertarians because that’s inviting criticism, but I’m thinking in terms of the libertarian who fantasizes about radical autonomy. But the right anarchist does not seek to overturn order all the way down. The left anarchist – the nihilist – does. The left anarchist is critical of everything down to the order laid bare by our natural human inclinations. My prototypical right anarchist does not go that far. The former is utopian; the latter is not stupid enough to be utopian. So the right anarchist favors order while disfavoring, perhaps, authority. This fosters a certain sort of asceticism in which the Self is not just a focal point but is also discussed in terms of potentiality. The left anarchist scoffs at the notion of potential. What’s that? he might ask. This ethic works back from the extremes to the middle of the pack of ideologues. Recognizing maximum potential, intellectually and physically, is more an ethic of the ideological right.
Funny enough, American Conservative’s tweet monkey sent out a link to a piece about Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs being co-opted by hippies and New Agers in the late 1960s. But an interesting passage from the article:
He [Maslow] even goes so far as to speculate whether the physical runtiness of the typical liberal intellectual shapes his thinking. “Does he identify with the loser, unconsciously feeling himself to be a loser? And to admire & follow the dictator, the violent one, the loud-mouth, the paranoid? Why did the intellectuals go for Stalin? And why are they not horrified by dictatorship today, if only it is on the Left side? Why don’t they love the Bill of Rights?”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Going on the political class alone I’d say liberals are much more likely to have plastic surgery(wicked witch of the west, Nancy pelosi comes to mind first and foremost).
Though it’s hard to say with any real certainty how that goes amongst the people I’d still suggest the same pattern applies.
Compare the women of Fox News to the women of MSNBC.
Case closed.
Leftist women may be unattractive, but Liberal women are not (see, oh, every woman in Hollywood). For the Leftist women, a lot of them are very masculine and aggressive, which draws them into politics in the first place (“you vill do as I zay!”). Also, you can have a feedback loop that being unattractive makes a woman resentful and full of hate towards more attractive women, and full of resentment for the men who spurn her. So these women are naturally drawn to Capital F Feminism because the project of Feminism is to destroy traditional gender roles, thus avenging the Ugly Sow on all those hot chicks and hunky boys that ignored her. And in order to implement Feminism, you need political power, so you go into politics or media.
In short, being an unattractive woman is a petri dish for militant Leftism, and the home for that is the Democrat party. Since the Republican party is hostile to militant Leftists, it draws women from a naturally more feminine group that feels gender roles are normal and should be maintained, so you get attractive “breeders” (e.g. Sarah Palin) or just lots of pretty girls that aren’t especially resentful towards other women or men.
That said, again the majority of pretty young women are Liberals (not Leftists). But that is almost entirely due to social status pressure. If the Republicans could figure out the magic formula for making Republicans “cool,” they would sweep to victory with 85% margins among young (mostly white) women.
Anatomy is destiny, but Peterike does have a point about vapid, good-looking celebrity women being almost all liberal. Since liberalism is the dominant ideology of Hollywood, these ladies follow the party line.
peterike is wrong on so many levels. Only liberals can consider a goon like Sarah Palin “far-right”. That bitch is a feminist, was a female Governor and her daughter is a single mother for heaven’s sake. She was not and will never be part of the “far-right”. She’s a trojan horse.
H899, who said Palin was “far right”? She is, however, no feminist, if only because she had a bucket of kids and is against feminism’s most vital sacrament, abortion. As for her being a “trojan horse,” were that true then you would have the media on her side, slipping her past the gates, as it were. Yet they despise her, and with fury. In Palin’s case you can truly know someone based on who their enemies are.
@peterrike – She’s a perfect illustration of Dalrock’s Churchian women. These type of women have made a strange, contradictory and creepy alliance between feminism and social conservatism. They’re trying to have it both ways (feminism and motherhood for example) and what does it lead?
Feminism + “Motherhood” = Single Motherhood (think Bristol)
Rep. Todd Akin is crazy but his gaffe about “legitimate rape” is actually far more traditionally conservative. Conservatives in the past cared about the father, the mother and the child. About the entire unit. About whether this case was legitimate (true) or illegitimate (false). About frivolous abortions, about lack of accountability, about lack of consequences, etc. Abortion fell on the truthfulness of the case, about realism, about ethics, about the entire family.
Now it’s all women, women, women, women, women, women and ad nauseaum.
The narcissistic, Churchian Sarah Palin is a huge trojan horse and only cares about herself. She’s not a biblical Christian. The power to decide about abortions should not fall on just women. It should fall on ALL parties. On men, women, children. It should focus on father, mother and child.
That creature only cares about herself, her books, her Reality TV Show. Female solispism on steroids anyone? Aaarghh.
Regardless of how churchian Palin is, she’s still a Republican woman and that was the basis of the study. Moreover, she’s more feminine than most Democratic politicians. She isn’t traditional enough for everyone, but that’s a subjective judgment. She’s still a married woman with a bunch of kids.
The Fox news vs. MSBNC example is really stupid, by the way. How do the blonde bimbo circus compare to the Left-Wing Hollywood starlets? The dyke on MSNBC, forget her name, is very well spoken and appears to be smart even though she’s really obnoxious and ignorant. So it’s a pretty stupid comparison.
I view attractive conservative women and attractive liberal women as wanting different pieces of the genetic pie. The conservative woman is more classically beautiful whereas the the liberal woman is more sexual and/or fecund. They meet their needs differently, one by acting sexual and the other by acting feminine. They still want to the top tier mates, but what they define as top tier is a little bit different as is their mating strategy. The conservative woman wants to be “first wife” to the alpha male who is successful in business while the liberal woman wants to retain promiscuity so she can choose from a greater selection of mates who are more entertaining.
The bulldykes and manjaws want political power so they can replicate the strategy of conservative women while the sex positive crowd wants to empower the female self esteem cult with free abortions and sexual license so they can replicate the strategy of liberal women.
“Married woman with a bunch of kids” is Palin at her core. Everything else was an add-on.
She is naturally a high-T, high-energy woman. Without having followed her life story closely, I believe that she was fairly apolitical and uninterested in ideology and even politics, outside of a generally conservative, pro-traditional America leanings. Her mayor and then governor terms were her way of eying involved on the community, without a larger ambition or political vision.
Then McCain’s team selected her for the VP slot, and this is my interpretation of what happened next: the establishment and media panicked — an attractive, wholesome, confident Republican woman with a husband and for children was too close to WN symbolism for their comfort. Her nomination speech, at which she brilliantly almost undid the entire Obama narrative by mocking his community organizer past… the mocking laugh of a beautiful woman is worth one thousand assassin daggers… set the liberal establishment into high DefCon mode. She had to be destroyed.
And destroyed she was, in that SNL skit.
Meanwhile, the neocon GOP went to work on het too. Here is where the feminist slogans got planted on her mouth, no different that what Romney’s wife’s platitudes at the mist recent convention. And her patriotardian warmongerism.
The lies and dissembling of seemingly insane feminists and their loser lackeys make sense when you realize that feminism is a movement to restrict men’s sexuality while removing all restrictions from female sexuality. omega males like manboobz and manjaws like marcuntte love it for the same reasons. this is why genetic and social losers flock to the dems; the promise of comeuppance for the winners and rewards for the losers. the more ideologically leftist, the uglier the advocate. garden variety liberal women tend to fall in the fat part of the beauty curve, and become more conservative after they get married. but since fewer women are getting married, liberalism is ascendent.
“feminine”, btw, largely means “physically attractive”, the sophistry of squid inking lefties notwithstanding to the contrary. when people use the word feminine, that’s what they mean.
I don’t understand the love for a Churchian creature like Palin. Ann Romney is a far better depiction of a traditional conservative woman than she will ever be. Paul Ryan’s wife is a better example. Heck even George W. Bush’s wife is a better example.
@Ulysses – “Regardless of how churchian Palin is, she’s still a Republican woman and that was the basis of the study.”
The degree to which Palin is a Churchian is important. She’s a good example of Dalrock’s rants against Churchians.
Palin is a frontier woman. Hers would not be a feminism of the cities back East or on the left coast. Depending on how you want to define feminism, the frontier states were most feminist of all. To lure women out West to accompany the men who went looking for work and adventure, universal suffrage was instituted. Utah and Wyoming were the first states to grant women the vote.
Palin took on the “mama grizzly” role, which does fit the frontier feminist type. They acknowledge sex differences but there is a greater appreciation for what a woman in her particular role can add to the family compared to the modern day chivalrous South which only places its women on a pedestal without asking much from them.
YMMV but pretty much all of the “Republican” women I’ve seen have been overweight. I don’t consider this to be indicative of much though because women who present themselves as Republican/Conservative are out of the mainstream of the majority of women who blindly accept Feminist/Liberal/Leftist ideas. Since the majority of women reside in this latter category, that’s where you’ll most commonly find the attractive ones.
Of course Chuck talks about excluding the non-passive ones, but honestly I don’t know what qualifies as active or passive. Almost everyone has a ‘team’ they’ll root for, but virtually no one plays.
hot young girls are liberal because all the “right people” are liberal, that’s it. they aren’t actively liberal, they just agree with it and go along with it and occaisionally vote for it or post to facebook about it. but generally they are way too busy being hot young girls to give a shit about leftism.
the professionals, example number one, sandra fluke, get involved because they’re ugly and otherwise worthless
Margaret Thatcher, while she was an inspirational female conservative I would call her neither ‘feminine’ or ‘attractive’.
Pingback: Political Muscle « Gucci Little Piggy