Liberal Woman Journalist Doesn't Get Conservative Women

One of the corollaries of my reductive Three Peoples theory is that people in one layer can't understand, and don't respect people in other layers. Example:

In Vanity Fair TV critic Sonia Saraiya asks "Is Hollywood too soft on conservative women?" Yes, she says, using "Mrs. America" on Phyllis Schlafly, "Bombshell" on Megyn Kelly, and "The Iron Lady" on Margaret Thatcher as examples. That's because Saraiya reckons "that they belonged to a group of “white nationalist racist gender traitors.”

In other words they had the wrong ideas, and weren't down-for-the-movement feminists. So launch the lefty pejoratives.

Did you know that "pejorative" means making things worse?

This attitude so common among educated women is, according to my theory, because People of the Creative Self, or educated Gentry, all have a culture in which women are supposed to believe in careers for women, and therefore abortion, and the notion that the "patriarchy" has oppressed women since the dawn of time.

And these people cannot understand or give the time of day to anyone outside the Overton window of their liberal world view.

But if you are a Woman of the Responsible Self, or a Commoner, you do not see yourself breaking the glass ceiling; you do not see the point. You see yourself as a wife, a mother, the caretaker of the family. So, you don't see the point of a career, not if it interferes with taking care of your family, you don't like the idea of abortion, because it implies that babies are expendable. And you don't see your husband as an oppressor, but rather as a provider that maybe doesn't always live up to the standards you have set for him. Yes, Commoner women tend to be a little patronizing towards their husbands.

Now, the women examined by Saraiya are/were not in fact ordinary Commoner women although they were born Commoners. Shlafly's father was a machinist and salesmen hammered by the Great Depression; Thatcher's father was a corner grocer in Grantham in England. But they got educated, starting with a Catholic girl's school for Schlafly and a British grammar school for Thatcher. 

Schlafly and Thatcher were both Amazon warriors, who learned how to operate in the men's public square utterly without fear -- or at least not showing any fear, which is what matters. They were extraordinary women, by any standard. Schlafly more or less singlehandedly ditched the Equal Rights Amendment; she argued that the ERA would be a disaster for women. Thatcher learned how to be a politician in Britain long before the parties prepared special women-only shortlists. It took Thatcher ten years of work before she got herself selected as a candidate for Parliament and elected to the House of Commons. And to see any of the videos of her as Prime Minister in the House of Commons shows her in complete mastery of the House of Commons culture, which is a male Culture of Insult. Only, because of House Rules, the insults must be indirect, which makes them much more fun.

The point of my Three Peoples theory -- and the reason I also use Curtis Yarvin's Three Layers theory of Gentry, Commoners, and Clients -- is because it proposes a world in which there are people Who Are Not Like You. And it thereby allows you to live with The Horror! that these other people are not going to agree with you.

"Because I am so wise" -- that's Fritzi's line, not mine -- I understand and empathize with the fact that the world is full of people that do not see it the way that I do. I realize that all the liberal Gentry women up the street with their #WeBelieve signs naturally believe all the liberal shibboleths like Love is Love and Women's Rights are Human Rights. But I also understand that they are sitting in their liberal bubbles talking to their liberal friends and just have no clue -- because their liberal world view does not admit such a clue -- of how the other half -- or rather two thirds -- lives and experiences the world. So, of course it makes sense for them to think of Other People as superstitious bigots or, in today's argot, “white nationalist racist gender traitors.”

You see, I believe in a world in which it is OK for a woman to be a furious feminist, breaking glass ceilings and non-cis-gendering to her heart's content. But I also believe in a world where it is considered worthy and honorable and respectable to be a wife and mother. And I also understand that there exists a world of Subordinate women, living in a pre-city culture in which women... Well I know not exactly how such a world operates. I assume it operates something like the community of women of the hunter-gather band or the village women of the agricultural era, or the working-class mothers of the industrial slum. But more research is needed.

Yes. What do lower-class women want? Or expect? Has anyone inquired, ever? Anyone thought twice about imposing their own world view upon these women?

Didn't think so.