It’s that time again! The time when we are all supposed lament, for some reason, the fact that no one wants to date or marry Trump supporters. Kicking this round off, surprisingly, was The Washington Post editorial board, which published an op-ed this week worrying about how young liberal women won’t want to marry conservative men and how that might destroy civilization as we know it. Because more young women are identifying as liberal than ever, while young men are getting more conservative.
No, really:
Gen Z is still relatively young, and the Trump-era divisions between single men and women might yet reverse themselves. But there’s a good chance they won’t, particularly if Mr. Trump manages to inject the body politic with his distinct brand of existential dread during and after the 2024 elections. It is worth thinking both ahead of and beyond Mr. Trump. A cultural shift might be necessary — one that views politics as a part of people’s identity but far from the most important part. Americans’ ability to live together, quite literally, might depend on it.
I don’t know why this op-ed exists, why the entire editorial board of the Washington Post thought it would be a good idea to publish it, or why they cited the ever-kooky Brandon Wilcox’s research to do it. Wilcox, by the way, is an American Enterprise Institute fellow who wrote a book actually titled Get Married: Why Americans Should Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families and Save Civilization.
Because nothing pisses of the Illuminati quite like people they don’t know getting married to other people they don’t know!
Eventually, this nonsense reached “Outnumbered,” where the Fox Force Four plus one guy who is I guess supposed to be a Democrat, were all very upset about the idea of liberal ladies refusing to become the tradwives of male Trump voters’ dreams. They were most upset, however, about Amanda Marcotte’s response to it in Salon, in which she praised the judgment of these hypothetical Gen Z non-Trump-voter-marrying gals and dared suggest that it was even a good thing that they not shackle themselves for life to men who voted for a virulent misogynist who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy.
Oh, the humanity of it all.
Rachel Campos-Duffy, who is the worst, lamented that if these liberal women refuse to date Trump supporters that “they’re going to date — and maybe ultimately marry —a bunch of beta guys who will want to split the check, won’t open the door, won’t protect them.”
Why is it always door-opening? I feel like it really says something about conservatives that the one goddamned thing they’ve been able to come up with to explain what it is that conservative men offer to women is their door-opening abilities. That is what they bring to the table. Either that or they’re whining that they just don’t know if they’re supposed to open doors or not.
Doors are not that hard! You put your hand on the knob and twist and pull. Or you push. Whoever gets to the door first opens it for the other person, so long as they are physically able to do so. It is not that complicated. It’s a fucking door, people. Figure it out.
Imagine thinking that women should have to put up with someone who thinks they don’t deserve reproductive rights — or who perhaps even thinks that Tom Hanks and Hillary Clinton are running a Satanic child-sex-trafficking operation out of a pizza joint — for the sheer joy of not having to open a door sometimes. Again, it is a door.
“I think that this idea that Trump voters are somehow repugnant is repugnant,” she continued. “These are great men. Many of them are the ones that are keeping this country running and putting food on the table, and they’re farmers, and they’re factory workers, and they’re soldiers.”
The only time a farmer is entitled to a wife is when he is standing in the middle of a circle of singing children, and even then — the cheese stands alone.
Trump supporters are absolutely repugnant. Beyond repugnant, really. There is no evidence to suggest that they are “keeping this country running” any more than people who are not yahoos running around in “Fuck Your Feelings” T-shirts (always a sentiment one hopes to hear from their betrothed) or crying about drag shows existing. (Also who wants to marry someone you can’t take to a drag show? Boring!)
Part of the reason why young men are becoming so conservative isn’t just because of Donald Trump, but because of other, equally horrible men they are listening to. Men like the extreme racist Nick Fuentes or accused sex-trafficker Andrew Tate, known to say things like “You can’t be responsible for something that doesn’t listen to you. You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you, or a child if it doesn’t obey you, or a woman that doesn’t obey you.”
Even teachers are complaining that the boys in their class are becoming horrible as a result of listening to Andrew Tate. We know for a fact that young men are becoming increasingly radicalized by him and by others, and yet the onus is somehow on young women to open their minds to the wonders of chaining themselves to one of them for life. What I don’t hear is anyone telling these young men to drop the YouTubes or perhaps consider developing empathy for other human beings. Or maybe just not, you know, being actual Nazis. That would be good.
Campos-Duffy did, at least, finally concede that political views just might reflect someone’s actual values. Woah if true.
Later in the segment, co-host Emily Compagno suggested that what it really comes down to is “being respectful.” What does that even mean? Like when they’re jumping through the windows of the congressional windows to overthrow the government, they sweep up the glass afterwards?
It is, arguably, easier for those who are well-off to marry people or even just hang out with people who disagree with them politically, as money can often shield you from the bad decisions politicians make and the shitty opinions that people with certain politics may hold about various groups of people. Money is what allows people — white men in particular — to view politics the same way they might view sports or music taste. Only people who have enough money and social power to not be personally affected by politics can sneer, as the Washington Post editorial board did, that “increasingly, the political is personal.”
If you’re rich, the fact that someone thinks that poor people are just lazy assholes is not a personal insult to you. If you are a white woman hardly likely to be strangled by police for selling loose cigarettes or to personally know anyone this might happen to, you might be able to tolerate life with someone whose sympathies lie with the police, even if you think killing unarmed Black people is generally bad. But the political is and always has been personal to those not wealthy enough to be shielded from the fallout of political decisions.
Dear WaPo and Fux Snooze, let me 'splain this to you in simple sentences:
Men who stan Donald Trump and extreme right wing politics are literally dangerous to women. They are advertising that they want total control over women and are willing to use violence and sexual assault to get it. This is why women avoid them.
Even conservative women know this. They may talk a good game about wanting 'real men' instead of wussy oat-milk-drinking beta cucks, but given the opportunity to get away from a shitty man, they will take it. (Hi there, Lauren Boebert! Kicking your garbage sex offender husband to the curb was long overdue but you still did it.)
TL;DR: THE MEN ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE WOMEN.
No love,
EP
MAGA: Sees a Prius going down the road, proceeds to cut Prius off and roll coal in their face and laughs maniacally. Fuck you, lib! Gives middle finger.
Gets to where he’s going. Finds out Prius is going to same place. Steals Prius’s parking spot.
Gets to the door, finds out Prius is a hot girl. Oh, can I get the door for you ma’m?
Prius: Fuck off, creep.
MAGA: Why are lib sluts so mean? 🤷♂️