williamk’s signal-to-noise ratio is off the charts. Nearly every comment is COTW-worthy. Here he explains how the sexual market gatekeeper role of women and the marriage market gatekeeper role of men influences the politics of each sex.
An interesting interpretation of the data is that among college eds, White Men are watching the women for signals, that is they are only as conservative as they can be and still get laid. While among non-college eds it more likely the opposite, the women will be only as liberal as they can be and still get married.
In both cohorts, the gatekeepers (sex for college eds, marriage for non college eds) set the political trends. Of course, being a liberal doesn’t actually help you get laid, but this is a good take on the general pulse of what’s happening: When men are in control (marriage), women follow the men. When women are in control (sexual access), men follow the women.
This is a parsimonious theory for the ideological split we see between non-college White women and over-credentialed White women. Female college students are on the cock carousel life strategy (whether they actually ride or not is immaterial — the trajectory of their lives will follow a similar path to that of the sex and the city slut who rides all day and night). For these college girls — and note that college girls are dumber today than they were in the past, owing to the lowered admissions standards of McUniversities — they are staring down the barrel of a decade’s worth of premarital sex. So their roles as sexual gatekeepers colors their interactions with men and their relationship to the State. College men, aka soyboys, will dance to the girls’ “welcome rapefugees” tune as long as they believe it gets them within the orbit of their nearest sex dispensary.
Non-college women, in contrast, have their eyes more strongly focused on marriage, because they can’t afford to blow a decade on cock hopping and mimosa brunches. They need a provider (a lot of the immiseration of the working class is a consequence of the lack of suitable provider males). Non-college women will therefore reflect the political views of their men to better sell themselves as marriage-worthy prospects.
A confounding factor to willamk’s theory is that ideology is partly heritable. It may be the case that women more interested in marriage and repulsed by the cock carousel lifestyle tend also to be more conservative in outlook. So college is filling up with the opposite — girls who aren’t as singularly focused on getting married and would prefer to monkey swing from soyboy to soyboy until latching onto a supergoy. Nevertheless, this gatekeeper theory of political affiliation is better than most I’ve read.
Executive summary:
Thirsty betas => shitliberalism
Desperate bachelorettes => shitlordism
I swear you’ll read more perceptive social analysis in one day on this blog than you’ll read in ten years at National Rejew.
FYI, williamk is the man who also introduced to this esteemed Chateau the concept of post-America liberalism as a “status cheating” strategy. Namely, as the nation has become more economically unequal, there are fewer avenues for striver SWPLs to gain real world, objective material and social status, so these locked out SWPLs turn to the raving lunacy of shitlibbery to gain unearned status by parroting anti-White pabulum. The solution to our shitlib problem may in part be returning to a more egalitarian (not “equal”) society marked by rising wages and less status whoring. Think anti-trust, tariffs, closed borders. So far, Trump is hitting two of three. I’m confident he’ll get around to the other one once all the GOPe cucks are jettisoned this November.
PS Do married White women continue voting like their husbands after years of marriage? If so, that would indicate a real shift in power dynamics in which married women mature into strongly identifying with their husband’s worldviews. If not, it would indicate there are social pressures pushing women to abdicate their marital duties.
