I was asked by a friend to write something about what’s going on with leftist white women aged 18-44 these days. Everyone has seen the videos of these women using violence against federal law enforcement as they go about their duties removing violent criminals who should not be inside the USA. In this post, I’ll go over a few recent articles that talk about this problem, and identify the cause of it. I really hope this will help you.
First, a poll, reported by PJ Media:
Earlier this week, Kevin Downey Jr. wrote about what he calls “affluent white liberal women,” or AWFLs, pegging them as the biggest internal threat to America… well-off women with pronouns in their bios and too much time on their hands. He described them as attention-seeking harpies who push extreme gender ideology, drag their kids to medicalized gender clinics, and parade them at sexualized drag shows labeled as “family-friendly.” These are the same people, he argued, who want to defund the police, defend criminals no matter how violent or foreign, and censor anyone who steps out of line with their diversity-and-inclusion gospel.
In fact, recent polling from Cygnal supports his thesis in a significant way. According to the poll, around 24% of Americans overall think criminal action, including violence, is acceptable to stop federal immigration enforcement.
[…]But drill down to white liberal women ages 18 to 44, and that number explodes to 61%.
The poll helps to illustrate the general trend behind the specific videos of these women getting violent with the police. Far from being one or two cases, this is actually what 61% of white leftist women ages 18 to 44 agree with. Regular readers will know about the slide of young women into the radical, extremist left, because I’ve blogged about the surveys showing a worldwide trend of young women becoming more leftist. But it’s useful to have the up to date numbers.
It’s also significant that most of these women are extremely unhappy:
Turns out they’re miserable. The 2024 American Family Survey found that 37% of conservative women and 28% of moderate women between 18 and 40 reported being “completely satisfied” with their lives. For liberal women in the same age group, that figure collapses to just 12%. Liberal women are almost three times more likely than conservative women to experience loneliness multiple times a week, 29% compared to 11%.
I’ve blogged about that, and also about the majority of them are mentally ill and taking psychiatric medications for their mental illness.
This article from The Federalist by Joshua Slocum entitled “Why Leftist White Women Are Leading Domestic Terrorism In Minnesota” is exactly right in identifying the root cause:
At least 60 years of mainstreamed feminism has put American culture under the stiletto heel of entitled and exploitative women.
[…]How did so many leftist American women decide that young foreign men who jump the border are innocent victims in need of their maternal protection, instead of the American girls and young women entitled to be shielded from these men?
The answer appears to be Cluster B personality disorders. These are deep, ingrained characteristics. Those with such disorders are fundamentally narcissistic, emotionally unstable, and often disconnected from reality.
[…]This is what we’re seeing in these female leftist “protestors.” Cluster B personalities are all about dysregulated emotions (usually rage or suicidal despair) and twisting reality into its opposite.
If you don’t follow me on Twitter, then you might not have heard of Hannah Spier, M.D. who is a psychiatrist whose videos on Cluster B personality disorders and dark tetrad personality patterns have been extremely helpful to me in understanding white leftist women.
And Joshua Slocum actually proposes a solution to this problem. What’s the solution? We hold women accountable for their bad choices, instead of blaming the results of their bad choices on men.
He writes:
First, we must enact swift and proportionate consequences. For too long, leftist agitators, especially women, have been given the hands-off treatment. Too many of these videos show cops wasting time issuing repeated orders to stop the car and get out while the harpies behind the wheel only escalate. Give the order clearly once. If she disobeys, cuff her and put her in the paddy wagon.
[…]Second, we have to reject the “women are wonderful” effect. This is a phenomenon that describes how both men and women have an in-built pro-female bias. We can look at a man and a woman both performing the same bad action, but we’ll excuse the woman while condemning the man.
Ill-tempered women in America have gotten away with disorderly and criminal behavior at high rates because of this bias. They know it, and they use it deliberately. This woman was tailing ICE and interfering with their operation, pulled the “I’m just a mom!” card when she was caught and forced to stop. Don’t fall for it.
By the way, there’s a great recent article from The Federalist about Christians firing a man and paying a woman just over $1 million dollars for engaging in the exact same action. The sentences given to men for crimes are 63% more severe compared to women, according to a recent study.
But let us continue with Joshua Slocum:
Finally, men have to go back to telling women “no.” This is the piece of advice most people have the hardest time with. Women hate hearing it. Many men do, too. We’ve been so hypnotized for so long by feminism that simply telling women “no,” and suggesting that a man ever exercise authority over a woman, is read by otherwise reasonable people as “misogyny.”
Nonsense. If women are full adults with as much agency as men, then they must be treated that way. Men have become knock-kneed with fear, even contemplating telling women “no.” It’s not an unreasonable worry. In my counseling practice, male clients have told me that simply holding female underlings to the same standards as males has resulted in complaints to HR that the men are “aggressive” with women.
Men, I’m afraid we’re going to have to do it anyway. They’re going to call us misogynists. They’re going to tell us we have “an aggressive tone” with women. This is merely the same toddler distraction behavior that ends up exploding in these absurd and dangerous street performances.
Men are not going to get through this without the accusations, and we have to accept that as the price we pay for helping put civil society back in order. The women will be fine. Sooner or later, the stroppy toddler cries it out and starts behaving sanely again.
If you want a long-form explanation for what the underlying cause of this mental illness is, you should check out this article from Aporia Magazine, entitled “Sterile Polygamy”. In one line, white leftist women are going crazy because they have adopted a dating strategy that leaves them with no commitment, no children, and no long-term love relationships.
Here’s the important part:
At the 2018 peak, 28% of men under 30 reported no sex in the past year, compared to 18% of women.
On dating apps, women’s average match rate is 31%; men’s is 2.6% — a 12-fold difference. The most desirable men receive overwhelming attention while the majority receive almost nothing.
[…]The data is stark. Analysis of dating app behavior shows that women like about 14% of male profiles, whereas men like 46% of female profiles. The result is that a small percentage of men receive the vast majority of female attention. The top 10% of men get over half of all likes. The bottom 50% of men get about 5%.
[…]High-status men benefit from polygyny. Women may even prefer to share a high-status man over exclusive access to a low-status one.
[…]If you designed a system to maximize sexual access for high-status men while maintaining the pretense of monogamy, you couldn’t do better than the one we’ve built by accident.
[…]We’ve invented something different: effective polygamy without children. High-status men cycle through partners, but nobody reproduces. Why? Because reproduction requires the lock-in that marriage provides. Serial dating offers [high-status] men all the benefits of access with none of the costs of commitment. And women, waiting for commitment from [high-status] men who have no incentive to provide it, delay childbearing until it’s too late.
So, will we get any leadership on this from within the Christian community or the conservative community? I don’t see any reason why we should expect to. Our leaders are still harping about “Andrew Tate” and ignoring all of the real underlying problems caused by feminist laws, policies and indoctrination.
When I listen to Christian and conservative leaders, they seem to think that they can expect good men to date and marry 40-year-old single-mother feminists who have spent their 20s chasing the bad boys and becoming less and less attractive as wives. And these leaders have no interest in reforming injustices like no-fault divorce, false accusations, biased domestic violence laws, paternity fraud, single mother welfare, etc. They can’t even name them! So, they’re just going to keep on insisting on a woman’s “right” to protection and provision from any man that she decides to settle for. When she is “ready”.
That’s not working. It will never work. We need a new strategy.
WINTERY KNIGHT 