This is one of those things guys have to intuit, because there isn’t much straightforwardness about it: Most straight women intensely punish displays of femininity in male partners.
They do not always say so, so as to be coherent with their politics. But also because that would defeat the purpose: Ideally one wants a man who is masculine, not merely performing masculinity.
Women aren’t straightforward with their sexual preferences not because they like to mess with men (why would they want fewer options?), but because it is far more devastating for a female to choose the wrong partner than it is for a male.
They want accurate signals.
The only workable advice for young men is: be clean, be fit, have interests, have functional knowledge, cultivate self-control and enjoy the resulting confidence.
If then YOU want to paint your nails *for you*—do it!
Rockstars can do it because it is a flex—they are so confident in their ability to get women that they can counter-signal—they can do what they like.
Truly self-confident men can get this self-expressive freedom too. But you can’t fake your way into it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In practice, this means that many of us can feel compelled by deep ties to protect the interests of Muslims as people, despite opposing their faith.
But Muslims are not bound in the same way to us--we are a minority + often closeted. They don't "know" us, as we know them.
2/
The ex-Muslims who don't make the believer/belief distinction are almost always those who have lost all ties with family--a rare (but highly platformed/visible) occurrence.
Most of us can and do--we have to. We are too intimately connected with Muslims to do anything else.
3/
I’m not sure if it’s obvious that “men want to control women’s reproductive functions”.
Men can more easily oppose abortion than women, but if the situation was reversed (ie: if men bore children), I think women would be *even more* against abortion than men are today. 1
In other words: the abortion debate is skewed by sex only because one sex isn’t directly affected, but one could as easily take that to mean that men vote *unencumbered* on behalf of the fetus’ “right to life”, whereas women must choose between that and their own well-being. 2
But all things being equal women care *more* about the well-being of children,even fetuses. It’s often said that if men could get pregnant we’d have full abortion access. I disagree. In that case, the sex divide would *widen*—men more uniformly pro-abortion and women more anti. 3
The idea that financial security makes people brave is true only when their surroundings are not a monoculture.
In monocultures, financial incentives can be one of the few reasons to veer away from conformity, especially when conformity produces real world harms.
Despite tenure, academics are *reliably more conformist* than many other professions.
Beyond what I discuss in the post above, many argue that tenure process itself filters for conformity.
It might be worth asking whether the practice does more harm than good, all in all.
One of the things that I find fairly off-putting about liberal politics is the drive to equalize all roles so that no one feels different, even if they literally are. Whether or not the difference is meaningful is a separate question, even then, MTG is more “mean” than “wrong”.
I know the responses to this will be a predictable “but my step parent was amazing / I love my step kids”.
Yes, sure. Can you look beyond your personal case? Do you deny also that step parents can bear their own *unique* challenges, therefore making their love more meaningful?
Carl, its not "racial particularism" to recognize that people from shared backgrounds can have a different kind of conversation together.
It is not a claim of exclusive knowledge that others *cannot* have the same ideas or insights, just a fact of life that they likely don't.
There is a lot you don't have to explain to your interlocutor when certain elements are shared, and that facilitates a discussion with a different layer of depth.
A group of women might have a diff discussion about menopause than a group of men. Not "ID politics" to seek either.