TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
60
- Hide Preview | 49 Comments | submitted 11 months ago by kittxxn [Post Locked]

It has often been recognized, possibly to a greater extent in recent years, that there seems to be a correlation between feminine temperament and left leaning ideology, and subsequently masculine temperament and right leaning ideology. Some have attributed this to the productive effort of males in contrast to the distributive focus of females throughout our evolved history – men have found food and produced shelter, and women have made sure each member of the family had enough to eat. As our communities have grown beyond the family, this responsibility has expanded, and women have historically taken up the role of caring for the children of others, the elderly, the disabled, and the weak.

I often experience this urge myself, which has drawn me to nursing, and draws me to offer food to men on the street. As a feminine woman, my primary instinct and temperament should reasonably draw me to socialism, as it has done so many women and effeminate men. Not only do we feel the need to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves, but we also appreciate the feeling of security that comes from knowing we will be taken care of. It takes courage to advocate for limited government, in which masculinity thrives with increased responsibility and independence, but comes at a high cost if one should fail.

But I am a libertarian conservative.

The Conservative Woman. A contradiction? A paradox? And why does it seem that some of the most traditionally conservative women are also the most feminine, and value these traits more than their counterparts on the left? (Shout out, RPW).

Within myself, I have discovered many reasons for this incongruence between my temperament and my political ideology, including the discovery through my work that to truly help someone means to support their independence and autonomy above all else, one of the first indications to me of the faults of welfare and similar supportive institutions. But there must be more to it.

What I have considered recently is that The Conservative Woman is still feminine in nature, but holds a high regard for masculinity as her natural counterbalance, retaining profound respect and admiration for men and their place in both the home and in society as a whole.

Modern women have “liberated” themselves from men, but in doing so, they have created within themselves a storm of insecurity and dissatisfaction with the independence they so desired. They want to be single mothers or have powerful careers, but find that without men, they turn to the state for security. However, they have failed to recognize that distribution without adequate production is impossible – or, that a society with socialist safety nets without the foundation of a strong capitalistic economy can only continue for so long before total collapse.

The future cannot be only female. It would end disastrously.

The Conservative Woman recognizes that security should be found in a home and a husband, not the state. The Conservative Woman recognizes that children need a father as much as they need a mother. The Conservative Woman trusts that masculine traits of competitiveness, dominance, and rational self-interest are positive traits and produce value in society and for the family. The Conservative Woman takes care of her family, but raises her children to someday take care of themselves.

The Conservative Woman does not feel a need to become masculine and independent, and allows herself to embrace her femininity and dependence on her husband, as he exercises his natural right to self-determination while bearing the weight of the responsibility that comes along with it. And personally, I think that is beautiful.

[-] Howlsraven 49 Points 11 months ago

For me I see RPW as separate for either conservative or liberal ideolgies. It's a toolbox that be applied to all people regardless of political officiation. I am very liberal in my beliefs but I love it here for the most part. I'm independent and don't need a man, but I want one. I know that I'm happier with my boyfriend than without and vice versa. I love cleaning and cooking and making a home the same way I love my job. And the thing that really matters, I love making my boyfriend happy, more confident and fufilled. Strong family ties are always better for children when the family are good people. Femininity is just as beautiful and important as masculinity. But that's just my view on it. :)

[-] [deleted] 19 Points 11 months ago

The Conservative Woman does not feel a need to become masculine and independent

There are two types of conservative woman that I have encountered.

(1) The type that IS more masculine. She is independent, she is more concerned with economic freedom than social justice, advocates limited government, and loves her guns. She's non-agreeable (often why she goes against the grain and becomes conservative in the first place) and she has a a strong sense of personal responsibility and self determination, similar to the conservative man.

(2) The type that values traditional familial roles and/or is heavily religious.

And sometimes they're both, but I'd say the more (1) they are, the more libertarian they are and the more (2), the more conservative.

I dislike socialism and would love for a limited government, but because of the religious stronghold on conservatism, will likely never call myself a conservative.

[-] Hermeticas 15 Points 11 months ago

"They want to be single mothers or have powerful careers, but find that without men, they turn to the state for security."

And who is it that pays for the redistributive programs that provide this security? When half of all tax payers draw more in benefits than they pay in taxes ... who composes the majority of those who are paying in?

The deeper irony here is that the real providers of society are still the same people. Men are providing for and protecting women the same as ever.

The difference is that the State is now the middle man in the exchange and the result is that women no longer have to reciprocate to any meaningful degree to those who are forced to provide for them.

A just result?

[-] LadySylwia 11 Points 11 months ago

Modern women have “liberated” themselves from men, but in doing so, they have created within themselves a storm of insecurity and dissatisfaction with the independence they so desired. They want to be single mothers or have powerful careers, but find that without men, they turn to the state for security.

Socialist here. I don't want to be a single mother or have a powerful career. I turn to the state for security because I do not have enough earning power to support myself as an independent adult. I work, and pay taxes, but my wages are low, so safety nets are necessary. For me, security is not found in the home and a husband because my family of origin was toxic, and as a result my pattern of attraction was ruined before it began. Unless something drastically changes inside my head, it's not likely that I will ever be able to have a real, loving, sustainable marriage with a man or produce mentally healthy children for him.

I try to cultivate both positive masculine and feminine traits in myself because the men in my "tier" do not possess many positive masculine traits (they are users and/or abusers of women), and considering my issues I have no business trying to get the attention of a higher value man. So I must be as self-sustaining as I can, and rely on public assistance where I can, until wages rise to meet inflation.

While you endorse limited government, just remember that the social safety nets we have now mean that women like me don't have to fake it anymore. We don't have to rush to bag a man for his resources even though we're not marriage or mother material. That frees up the people who actually should be reproducing to form families like you described.

[-] 5400123 15 Points 11 months ago

You realize you're conflating socialism and progressivism - a social safety net is not a "socialist" idea.

Socialist economic systems are based around the elimination of private property. It's about public ownership of all property. You get assigned a house, a car, and a job by the government. Or maybe you don't. The little income you make is taxed to "upkeep" government property, and anything left for yourself buys you food or maybe a bottle of booze.

Socialism is a literal nightmare that doesn't have anything at all to do with the progressivist ideas of welfare and a safety net. You may think it does, but it's only because you're conflating modern ideas into it. Lenin and Stalin didn't run a welfare fund.

You'd be apt to realize that this atrocious system of economic management fails everywhere it is attempted, and the appeal to emotion it uses to forward its policies are equivalent to the devil promising you a Ferrari if you "sign the dotted line."

No con artist was ever successful by being forthright with their lie. I'd recommend you read into longstanding debate regarding private property, it's the central issue at stake between capitalist and socialist systems.

Progressivism and social safety programs to the degree they advocate socialist programs need to be strictly rejected. These programs are still possible under a capitalist framework.

With regards to women, it's perhaps more important than ever to tease out the emotional manipulations held in most socialist messaging as fundamentally leading to poverty, diminished freedom, and society wide suffering.

Progressivism is one thing, but for example, there are ways to provide cheaper and affordable healthcare without nationalizing hospitals and making every activity of the medical field a bureaucratic and legally deadlocked affair.

[-] zionbeers 3 Points 11 months ago

I think one issue is that OP herself conflated socialism with progressivism, which could be why the poster you responded to also used it. 99% of "democratic socialists" in the US just wanted a restrained version of capitalism, and the debate in our current culture is more "how exploitative and weighted toward corporate power do we want our capitalism to be?" versus "capitalism vs. socialism".

[-] LadySylwia 1 Point 11 months ago

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. In my reading I've not seen the term Progressivism used. It's been Socialism vs. "Sovietism".

With regards to women, it's perhaps more important than ever to tease out the emotional manipulations held in most socialist messaging as fundamentally leading to poverty, diminished freedom, and society wide suffering.

I don't know how much of my thinking is influenced by emotional manipulations and how much it is based on a rejection of the hyper-conservative attitudes around which I was raised.

I was a moral-issue conservative for awhile despite a naturally leftist bent (evident from childhood) until I lost my childhood form religion and had a brief affair with libertarianism. The whole Wild West thing deeply appealed to me for a time. One issue that drew me leftwards was mainly the conviction that market regulations are necessary to protect citizens from opportunistic greed. The reason I do not identify as a liberal is because I think liberal values like moral relativism and tolerance do not properly take into account the ripple effects which our actions have on others, especially children.

That said, I think your point

These programs are still possible under a capitalist framework.

is correct. When I say that I am a socialist I don't mean to say that I wish to overthrow the current government and redistribute the resources. It is better to say that I think there are some benefits we ought to work to guarantee to everyone simply on the basis of their humanity (and citizenship).

​

[-] 5400123 6 Points 11 months ago

Oh I'm not seeking to like, tell you you've been manipulated, just that in a general sense, along with the spirit of the OP, that women are more susceptible to be politically manipulated with "think of the children" type arguments, that more often than not, are simply power grabs.

[-] girlwithabike 6 Points 11 months ago

That frees up the people who actually should be reproducing to form families like you described.

You are mistaken. Social safety nets cost money. That money comes from the incomes of those traditional men and women, potentially limiting their ability to have families in the time frame or size that they desire.

One of the gifts of being able to work and care for yourself, is that you don't have to find a man to depend on. If that is not the woman you are, then you are lucky to live in a western country where we women have the ability to work and earn for ourselves. We can do this as much or as little as we want. We can have jobs or careers. We don't have to marry and be dependent on a husband unless we want to be.

So without the social safety net, there is no reason that you cannot work to build yourself whatever life you desire. You can mix in more masculine and aim to achieve greater heights. You can find a comfortable job and a modest life if that is not your cup of tea. You can find a man who fits with your goals (family or career woman) and work to build something together. You can build a comfortable solitary life to break the toxic cycles of your past.

However, with the social safety net, the people who "should" be forming families are giving a portion of their hard work to cover the costs of others. This impacts their ability to have those families that they desire (and that ultimately create more people to continue funding those safety nets). Many families can no longer get by on one income, forcing otherwise "traditional" mothers into the workforce.

Women voted for this (the OPs idea that women tend towards more socialist 'care for all' ideas). Our agreeableness and nurturing has taken money from our families and redirected it to care for others.

You have the right to your politics, but do not pretend that your benefits don't come from someone else's hardwork and obligations. Do not think that others do not have to limit their lives in order to provide safety nets for all. In the US, women are a net drain on the tax base whereas men are a net gain. Some man is providing for you. Instead of it being a man who loves and cares for you, it's a man who doesn't know you and probably resents you.

If your income wasn't paying for others, you would bring home more and have less of a need for the safety net.

[-] LadySylwia 3 Points 11 months ago

So without the social safety net, there is no reason that you cannot work to build yourself whatever life you desire.

I would say that it is much riskier to work one's way up without fallbacks in place, especially if that upward mobility involves paying for education.

You have the right to your politics, but do not pretend that your benefits don't come from someone else's hardwork and obligations.

I had no intention of suggesting otherwise. I plan to work all my life and pay into the same system. I don't personally see a problem with contributing to it. If you are (or plan to be) a mother, I can understand that your first priority is the welfare of your own children.

[-] girlwithabike 7 Points 11 months ago

I would say that it is much riskier to work one's way up without fallbacks in place

With everything, education included, there is a risk to reward ratio. Actually, education is a great area to consider. During the boomer generation, a college degree neatly correlated with a higher income over a lifetime. It was not available to everyone and the individual footed the bill which was manageable. As we decided to back student loans so that everyone had money available (without the benefit of working through college to pay tuition or parents to support your goals) the value of the degree went down. Now it's not just any degree that will earn you a higher income over a lifetime. It's not the mere act of working your way through college that provides you solid footing in life. Also, because it's available to so much of the population, a degree becomes a requirement for many jobs where it's really irrelevant. It's difficult to opt out. Add in the fact that the risk of student loans are no longer born by the company that issues them. In an attempt to ensure that anyone can attend college, regardless of income, we've made the cost incredibly high. This cuts into the ability of those same students to: take entrepreneurial risks, start families young, own property, take time out of the work force for any reason.

So yes, it is riskier to work up without fallbacks in place. The very purpose of a fallback is to eliminate the risk. But so many of these programs have far reaching consequences that we don't see until decades have passed.

I don't disagree with all safety nets either. It's just that your initial comment treated the situation as though it's a benefit to the men and women who want a traditional family or lifestyle (by removing others from the market, so to speak). It's those very men and women who are bearing the cost of these safety nets. I work as a financial advisor, so I see a lot of the costs these programs and taxes have on the middle class families. Some of our wealthiest clients are single women who have worked comfortable jobs their whole lives with no burden of family. This is contrasted by the families that are choosing between sending their kids to college or funding their own retirement.

Relating back to the OP: my suspicion is that we, particularly women, believe in these safety nets out of compassion and naivete. I mean this by the true definition - lack of experience, innocence. We believe that everyone who is tapping into these programs is a hard working adult who just needs a leg up. This is our nurturing natures being focused outward on the world. The problem is that we are no longer coming face to face with the people we are aiding. We have no idea what these people are like, if they are upright and honest or if they are taking advantage. Charity used to be done in your own communities. You saw the people you were helping. I don't think the instinct to help others is bad, I think the nature of how it is done is bad. My drug addicted, male friend was on gov't disability and collecting from a food pantry at a point in his life. He had a family to help him if he would have swallowed his pride. He could have worked if he got his addiction under control. Instead he lived off the system. The system wasn't meant to help people like him. He's not as much of an outlier as we might want him to be.

Our children should be a focus, yes. But so should our extended families and our immediate communities.

[-] yamkatasi 2 Points 11 months ago

Edit: Meant 0.01%

Maybe if the top 1% would take salary cuts we all could keep our incomes while providing a safety net for those who need it. But the current neoliberal capitalistic economy actually glories that kind of selfishness.

[-] Guywithgirlwithabike 4 Points 11 months ago

Let's avoid the unreliable nature of "voluntary" salary cuts for the 1% and just use the preferred method in your country - heavy taxation.

Here's some rough math for you:

The threshold Household Income for the 1% in the US, according to 2016 data, is $1,135,421 annually.

According to the 2010 census (most recent data) there were 1,170,000 households in the 1% in the US.

If we taxed every last household in the 1% at a 100% tax rate, it will produce ~$1.328 trillion in revenue annually.

Sounds like a lot, right?

If you answered 'yes', you suck at math and shouldn't get a say in public finances.

Total expenditures by the US federal government in FY2017 was $3.982 trillion, so that socialist plan I just presented still has a $2.654 trillion budget shortfall, and on top of that, it just created 1,170,000 households worth of homeless citizens.

The results of socialist policies are so obviously catastrophic that you don't get to say you're a socialist AND say you care about people. Advocating a policy of "let's just steal it from people richer than us" is the statement of someone consumed by resentment and malice.

[-] yamkatasi 3 Points 11 months ago

If you had read through the entire thread you would ve seen that I don't agree with socialism either. While I might not be the best at economics I felt that RPW was a space where one could have civil discussions without jumping down each other's throats. I usually don't post on Reddit because I am not very confident at it and you ve just made me not want to interact in this sub-reddit again. I am trying to have a constructive discussion here and you are getting personal by saying I am someone with resentment and malice. I am the 0.1% in my country, very privileged. Please remember that the person you are replying to is a human in front of a screen.

Also, I don't understand this all or nothing approach. It is utterly stupid to tax any income group at 100%. Rather look at all the possible sources of funding like I dunno maybe spending less on wars abroad or organising coups or not bailing out the idiots who caused the 2008 financial crisis. The American policies always favor this 0.01% because they are the ones who own your country and the world. But the public still holds onto the American dream because that's what the media feeds them and believe they too can make it even though the scales are so rigged.

P.S I dont suck at math just because I dont know about how much the United States spends in a year. Not everyone is American, there is an entire world out there.

[-] girlwithabike 1 Point 11 months ago

You want to have a say in the welfare of a country that you do not live in.

I do feel America can handle WAY better.

Then you want to turn around and say that "not everyone is American" when you are ignorant of certain facts or information.

I dont suck at math just because I dont know about how much the United States spends in a year. Not everyone is American, there is an entire world out there.

You do not get to have it both ways. You either must understand what you are commenting on or not presume to comment.

Further, "you hurt my feelings" is not an acceptable debate tactic.

I usually don't post on Reddit because I am not very confident at it and you ve just made me not want to interact in this sub-reddit again.

[-] yamkatasi 2 Points 11 months ago

I don't want to have a say in what America does. It is just my opinion that things could be done differently. Don't get so defensive if someone points something lacking your country. I may not know the exact amount but I know that defense is a large part of the budget. Why won't you or your guy reply to this point??

This is a fricking discussion but the just the idea of redistributing wealth turns you and your guy in a tizzy. You refuse to consider other aspects I mentioned.

Me saying my feeling got hurt isn't acceptable but your guy can make personal attacks. Great debate skills along with making assumptions like 100 % taxation for a particular income group. Polices don't have to be all nothing and he should know better since he seems to know a lot about managing public finances.

The issue was the tone of his comment. He didn't want to have a discussion just make me feel shitty .I understand if people would behave this way on TRP or somewhere on Reddit.But this is a space for WOMEN to talk without having a man make personal attacks like me sucking at math or being resentful or malicious and wanting to steal from those richer than me.

[-] ragnarockette 1 Point 11 months ago

You're forgetting that

a) If $1.135M is the threshold then everyone is making more than that and some people are making a fuckload more than that.

b) None of these people would be homeless because this is only talking about income, not wealth.

c) Obviously other people are still going to be paying taxes too.

d) There are many other ways to tax the rich without raising income tax. Tax on second properties and income properties. Capital gains tax. Progressive tax on things like yachts and planes. Removing loopholes which allow the richest individuals and corporations to pay effectively zero tax.

A flat tax with zero loopholes would be by far the most fair, but accountants and lawyers lobby against this because simplifying the tax code would put their whole industry out of work.

I don't understand people who want to protect the poor, suffering 1% at the expense of the middle class. We all read Atlas Shrugged and liked it when we were 16. People would rather protect the fantasy that they might someday be a billionaire than increase taxes on the wealthy and help more people today.

I'm a Centrist and for the most part a capitalist. But for people who seem desperate to "go back to when America was great" they forget that income inequality is about 50x greater than it was in the 1950's. The rich have only their own best interests in mind and we live in a system that is built for everyone to struggle and be in debt forever for the enrichment of the few. Yes, the left has some fucking dumb ideas on how to fix this (tax cut for renters, give me a break) but the passion with which normal, middle class people will defend the ultra-rich absolutely astounds me.

[-] Guywithgirlwithabike 1 Point 11 months ago

a). The existence of a vanishingly small number of exceedingly high earners is not going to have an appreciable effect on the sum total of that ~1.1 million households - it's the median income in the 1%. And the median income in the 1% isn't far enough above the threshold to change the outcome of the analysis.

b). Those of the 1% that live in homes with mortgages on them will wind up homeless. Taxing them at 100% for a year means they won't have any after-tax income with which to pay their mortgage for the year. Taxing someone at 100% is effectively enslaving someone, which is really the issue being argued here.

c.) Yes, there are other people being taxed, but the bottom 99% pay only 61% of federal revenue. There's not enough to be gained by bleeding the last little bit out of the 1% - certainly not enough to fund universal healthcare.

d.) But this wasn't a discussion on the merits of reforming the tax code - an area you would be surprised to know you're virtually in complete agreement with the average conservative. This was a discussion on the merits of imposing a 100% tax on the top 1% of earners - a position that is morally reprehensible, yet somehow becoming normalized amongst liberals. If you want to see sensible tax reform take place, you need to first not reflexively ally yourself politically with people motivated by resentment for the rich. They don't share your desired outcome.

[-] girlwithabike 1 Point 11 months ago

This is a shallow talking point. We can discuss it further if you can tell me:

  • What are the salary ranges that put someone in the top 1% statistically

  • How much money is needed annually to cover medicare? social security? your favorite social safety net?
[-] yamkatasi 3 Points 11 months ago

I am sorry I meant to talk about the 0.01% or the uber-rich. A quick google search from a 2016 paper by Piketty and Saez tells me that the 1% in USA earns $408,000 while the 0.01% earns anywhere from $7.5M to 18.9M a year. To me that seems excessive specially considering that a good chunk of this money is made through hedge funds and stock markets, options that are simply too risky for people who dont have the starting capital. The starting pad that your parents provide you can make a huge difference. This article has really cool graphs about this topic.

Also since I dont live in USA I dont know the details of the health care there but living in Sweden I do feel America can handle WAY better. If this 0.01% is held accountable I am sure we could fund basic healthcare. Not going to the doctor for minor things can actually end up causing greater diseases. But I dont support giving out money for childcare. People should wait till they are financially responsible to have children. At the same time contraception, sterilisation and parental leave should be freely available to MEN and WOMEN. Maybe a supplementary income for the first few years to help with cost with diapers etc (costs that will go away in a few years could be considered) Improving the quality of life for others can help us ( egoistic altruism: video explanation by Kurzgesagt) and although socialism isnt the answer neither is the current scenario.

Edit: Forgot to link the article -.-

[-] girlwithabike 5 Points 11 months ago

It is estimated that medicare for all would cost $32 trillion dollars during it's first ten years of implementation. That is a terribly large percentage of the top 0.01%'s income that would need to be taken in order to fund just this one social program.

Our highest tax bracket is almost 40% already. Anything over $470,000 (for a married couple) is already taxed at this number. Then there are state taxes and property taxes and sales taxes and social security taxes on top of that. A family making $500,000 already gives nearly half their income to one government or another.

If you begin to tax the excessively wealthy more than they already are, they will begin moving money offshore. The more money you have, the more of an ability you have to work with the "loopholes" in the system and the global economy to shelter some of your income from taxes. The reason hedge fund manager take their income as a capital gain distribution is because capital gains are taxed at a far lower rate than ordinary income.

So then we have to look to the lower tiers of income to make up the rest of the financial needs of this program. For perspective, I work with a couple firefighters and police officers through my finance job who are making around $120,000 annually. If the spouse works making a median income, they are pushing $200k for their joint household income. This will be taxed at 28 - 33% on the federal level, then add state, social security, property and sales taxes to that. There are many people that do not do as well, but these people worked to get where they are. They chose risky jobs with a higher reward (salary) for their risk. These are jobs that you can take straight out of school, no college required.

This is all without adding the burden of healthcare for every person on their shoulders.

There is simply no way that taxing the wealthy for healthcare doesn't also trickle down to taxing the middle class. The incentive to work and build yourself up decreases when you are funding many at the bottom as much as you are funding your own life.

Sweden is a much much smaller country than the US. You simply cannot assume that what works for you will work the same for us.

[-] yamkatasi 1 Point 11 months ago

I actually come from India so I totally understand that Swedish system works well only on a smaller scale. Maybe that's what we need to do, break down governance because that sounds like an awful lot of taxation and very little resources in return. Maybe America could down on its defense budget and put the money in health care or education.

My specialty is engineering and sustainability science so I didn't know a lot about the economics behind this and this was very enlightening. If you could link a few sources that would be great. I would like to know where these numbers come from.

I am in a very academic phase in life which is actually quite idealistic. But as my understanding is the current economic system is bad for our communities and the environment and a deeper systemic change is needed. Broken healthcare and education systems benefit no one. I see India struggling with similar issues as America although we are VERY VERY far behind.

[-] cynicalhousewife 10 Points 11 months ago

I am a libertarian conservative. It's interesting as I have a very masculine finger digit ratio. When it comes to MBTI I am also an INTJ and when I was a child it was thought that I had ADHD and Aspergers, although it's not something I give any thought to as an adult. I don't feel masculine. I have mostly feminine likes and dislikes. I am however not as sentimental as the majority of other women and it's much more difficult to offend or shock me. I don't need a lot of approval from people I don't consider as important, although I don't like attention and fuss from them, either. Needless to say I struggle to make female friends. Women often find me offensive and socially clueless. I can't for the life of me get along with ESFJs and ISFJs and think that's a part of it as a lot of other women are those types.

[-] EclecticRenaissance 2 Points 11 months ago

Jesus. I don't wanna be some orbiter but, I'm an INTP libertarian who's recently started straddling the line of civic nationalism. And ahh...well, it's good to know that you even exist.

[-] chillywaterphish 1 Point 11 months ago

ENTJ Libertarian here!

[-] KittenLoves_ 8 Points 11 months ago

Being RPW doesn't mean being conservative. I'm glad you're happy about the fact that you identify as a conservative woman, but this isn't really the place for political discussion.

[-] kittxxn 2 Points 11 months ago

This post isn't exactly about politics, "conservative" can mean many things. I believe the modern republican party is often not even conservative. It's about ideology, values, and the way we think about society and our roles in it. Sorry if you think it isn't relevant. Conservative in this context especially means upholding traditional views on marriage and family, in contrast to modern women and feminism, and comparing that to a broader discussion on the role of government.

[-] pheonix-in-the-ashes 8 Points 11 months ago

I actually have always found the opposite but perhaps that’s a regional thing. In my current part of the US most liberal women are militant feminist who very greatly stray from femininity and adopt more masculine traits.

I used to be one so I guess that’s why but my political beliefs more closely aligned with feminism than straight liberal beliefs.

The caring and nurturing is more aligned with my religious beliefs than politics in my mind but that’s complicated.

Once I explored why I became a feminist... which essentially was poor vetting and picking partners who were not good providers which forced me to have to adopt a masculine role and become an alpha woman to make up for their shortfalls. Also, way more complicated. I realized I wasn’t a feminist because I wanted to be but because of the failures of the man I chose as my partner. We won’t get into too much but he was a jobless loser with zero instinct to protect or provide.

Anyways once I realized that I went back to being politically conservative and embraced femininity. I think a lot of liberal women believe in a liberal sexual perspective (not all) which clashes with RPW beliefs which is my major hang up here.

[-] kittxxn 7 Points 11 months ago

I think you may have misunderstood my message. I agree with you wholeheartedly! Conservative women specifically are able to embrace femininity because they're not trying to replace men in society.

[-] [deleted] 5 Points 11 months ago

I think her idea is not that liberal women act more feminine, but the policy they pursue is more in tune with feminine traits. Looking out for the oppressed, making sure everyone is taken care of and gets "their share".

Also a lot of the militant feminists like to insist that femininity is better than masculinity, but they tend to utilize typical masculine traits to try and make their point. It's kind of funny really. "femininity is better than masculinity, so lets all stop having children, shave our heads, pursue typically masculine careers/hobbies, and sleep around til our hearts content".

[-] Hammocknapping 3 Points 11 months ago

I would say the values OP defines as feminine are in line with the concept of charity. Whether or not one believes the government should enforce compulasary charity has nothing to do with femininity vs. masculinity or RPW.

[-] kek_mate 2 Points 11 months ago

Jordan Peterson had a bit on that.

They like to think they've eradicated biological imperatives. Yet they're acting out the oedipal mother in a group fashion. Group X needs to be protected from Group Y, Y is all evil! After which it's a very black and white narrative where one group can do no wrong, and the other group can do no right.

[-] kittxxn 1 Point 11 months ago

Bingo.

[-] Lux_x_Aeterna 7 Points 11 months ago

I think there is a lot of truth to what you have said. Yes, women tend to be drawn toward socialism because it is the more compassionate ideology. But I do think that much more than femininity correlates to conservatism. For example, if you take Jordan Peterson’s personality test, he correlates different personality traits to political ideologies. For example, people who are high in agreeableness tend to lean left. On average, women tend to be more agreeable than men. So it makes sense, but I just think there is more at play here.

[-] Guywithgirlwithabike 5 Points 11 months ago

False.

Openness to experience correlates with liberal political views.

Conscientiousness correlates with conservative political views.

Agreeableness has no bearing on political belief that is discernable by statistical methods.

[-] Lux_x_Aeterna 1 Point 11 months ago

But I did think agreeableness has some bearing on political values?

[-] Lux_x_Aeterna 1 Point 11 months ago

Thank you. I forgot

[-] sonder_one 1 Point 11 months ago

Yes, women tend to be drawn toward socialism because it is the more compassionate ideology.

No, it is the ideology that claims a monopoly on good intentions. It doesn't actually have that monopoly, or anything close to it. The most compassionate ideology is the free market.

[-] FleetingWish 5 Points 11 months ago

The reason why women tend to lean left is that women value security over freedom, and men lean right because they tend to value freedom over security. Almost any conflict between red and blue can be boiled down to this fundamental discrepancy.

The difference between the conservative woman and the liberal woman isn't that she no longer cares about security, she absolutely does (that's one of the biggest reasons they tend to be pro-marriage). The difference is that right leaning women derive their sense of security from their significant others, rather than wanting security from the government or strangers.

[-] [deleted] 5 Points 11 months ago

Also, if it wasnt political as I've seen you state a few times in response, I think the word "traditionalist" is one that probably conveys the same sentiments you were trying to get across without making it sound as though there are in general, certain exclusive political pre-reqs to applying red pill theory to your relationship.

I dont mean this in a bitchy way, I do understand what you were trying to say and I actually agree for the most part. Just offering some wording advice.

[-] BeginningSomewhere3 3 Points 11 months ago

I agree with this. I was sort of turned off after reading it because I felt like it's somehow "not ok" to value non-conservative political ideologies and at the same time be a traditionalist in your personal life. That just isn't true though. You can still prefer traditional gender roles and feminity, and at the same time think some liberal/leftist policies make sense. This could have been mitigated by simply substituting the word "traditional" for "conservative".

Even if she didn't mean for this to come off as politically driven in any way, you can tell by the comments that everyone else interpreted it like that, either positively or negatively. I figured most people came here for the "Trad" part of TradCon and not really for in depth political ideology discussion.

[-] PatnarDannesman 2 Points 11 months ago

This is an intelligent analysis.

You have realised that redistributive nature must be consensual. The welfare state abrogates that and essentially becomes theft. It also grows and grows and eventually suffocates the productive.

A man must choose to want to give you the spoils of his hunt for you to then redistribute to the family.

[-] [deleted] 2 Points 11 months ago

To be honest I dont even worry about politics to the extent of identifying as a member of one party or another. I'm sure that on paper because of my more recent voting history I'm a Republican right now. And I do agree more with what I hear from the right than the left. But in a common sense way. I try not to get too wrapped up in politics because its exhausting and I have better things to do than to make a fool out of myself arguing political nuisances with someone that makes a hobby out knowing how to make me make a fool out of myself! Lol. It's why I completely quit Facebook after the 2016 elections. So many "come at me" posts and I just could not even... I know what I believe in and what I stand for but I can never guarantee I know what any politician does, but in general yeah. I'm probably a conservative.

Edit: also I totally get what you're getting at and I think that there was a time when the majority of RPW was conservative and very exclusive, but it seems that the general consensus is that if RPW were not inclusive it would eventually cease to exist. Its separate from politics because it's a relationship philosophy which is great enough to be shared with all kinds of different types of women.

[-] spell_casting 1 Point 11 months ago

You can also consider this from a Darwinian perspective, that traditional families/groups were able to survive longer than non-traditional simply because infants were confined within the protection of their mothers all the time. It was risky for a mother to go out alone hunting, and if the infant accompanied her, she'd endanger herself and the infant. And I think becasue of this darwinian mechanisms a type of morality/higherValues emerged. That's why (and been documented) that conservatives have high morals/personal boundaries.

[-] ragnarockette 1 Point 11 months ago

I am pretty liberal and I've never felt like RPW philosophy is at odds with my political beliefs.

There is a certain (large) subset of Red Pill adherents who believe the universe has gone off course and if we all just went back to women wearing dresses and staying home and men making all the decisions that order would be restored to the universe. These people blame crime, unemployment, traffic, rape, and basically everything bad on the Blue Pill. I think there are a lot of legitimate, thoughtful critiques there, but I think that ignores all the positive progress that has been made as a result of female empowerment and Blue Pill societal changes.

Right now this perspective aligns fairly well with our current political divide.

For me Red Pill is not about how we, as a society, should behave, but about how I choose to behave in my private relationship. I think women should run companies and countries. That doesn't mean I want to. I think men should be stay-at-home-dads if that works best for their families. That doesn't mean I want to be married to one. It isn't my place to judge people who live differently than I do.

I also feel like the Red Pill world has created this bogeyman of the "Fem-Nazi" and "SJW" as this faux-antagonist to the RP lifestyle. I say you do you, I'll do me. If someone wants to be gender-binary polyamorous fuck the patriarchy metal queen, then good for them. As long as you're a nice person I couldn't care less.

[-] AleaIacta666 1 Point 11 months ago

It's also a feminine trait to want to see your beloved ones safe and not expose them to dangers, being risk averse.

[-] aussiedollface2 1 Point 11 months ago

I’m not sure. In my country (Australia) left wing women are mostly very aggressive and opinionated xo

[-] zionbeers 1 Point 11 months ago

As others have pointed out, living out conservative gender roles in our personal relationships is often entirely separate from our political views.

It's going a bit far to state that socialism naturally draws more women and ‘effeminate men.’ Most of the men I know, including my fiancée, who are interested in some form of democratic socialism are interested in it because socialistic programs can provide a counterbalance to the exploitative nature of capitalism, which is the system beneath western society even when ‘liberals’ control the government. Some socialistic programs and socialistically-inclined policies—such as laws that ensure healthcare coverage for preexisting conditions, strong support for unions, social security, etc.—are largely supported by men in the lower and middle classes who are main breadwinners and need to support families. Policies that are more in the progressive vein protect their ability to be independent and autonomous by earning a living wage and having some rights as workers. That’s the tradition that has led my FH to be much more open to democratic socialism than I am; he comes from a tradition of midwestern Catholics who have been historically both pro-union and pro-family, and have tended to vote Dem along those lines. Honestly a big reason that Clinton lost in 2016 is that the Dem party has strayed too far from its ‘workers and families’ emphasis from the mid-late 20th century to focus on social issues. FH’s social views on race, etc. also play into voting progressive, but largely because a society that tolerates police killing black men and historical discrimination doesn’t have much ground to stand on when it criticizes black people for not having stronger families.

Generally it’s important to remember that in many European countries, and especially in the US, we’re never actually discussing socialism vs. capitalism, we’re discussing less exploitative, more regulated capitalism versus ‘purer’ capitalism. If we went toward ‘purer’ socialism or even communism, we’d be drifting closer to fascism, which is arguably that most ‘masculine’ of political ideologies. If we're going to assign "gender traits" to political ideologies, we have to think about which qualities are most important. We already have "masculine" competition within society, by the nature of being capitalistic; I'd rather have a government manifest "gentler" masculine traits: leadership, protectiveness of the "family," adjudicating disputes. For example, I think Trump and his admin. are undeniably masculine; they just tend to manifest the worst traits of masculinity too often.

Anyway, my overall point is that political ideology is more about folks’ economic starting points and ideas than about ‘gendered’ traits. I come from a background with more money than my FH does, and unsurprisingly I’m more moderate.

[-] Leaz31 1 Point 11 months ago

I don't agree with your original statement that woman are socialist, because woman don't want to share to the society, they want their own kid to be protected and having what they need. They want it for the smaller social structure : the family.

This is really more a conservative stance than a socialist one, and so it's really not surprising to have so much conservative woman.

As men, they are the workers, so they should tend more to socialism. It's their labor who's used to make money for the owner, and as the capitalist system is pyramidal you'll have mathematically way more men being spoiled than men benefiting from the system.

But actually, statistics in politics say that woman tend to be more represented in middle wing / reformist party, as you will have way more men in extremist left or right wing. But this is tendencies, it's not impossible to have woman in extremist party.