Crazy Ideologies

[Manric Hock]

Inpolitical science, a political ideology is a certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class or large group that explains how society should work and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. Some political parties follow a certain ideology very closely while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them. An ideology's popularity is partly due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their own interests. Political ideologies have two dimensions: (1) goals: how society should be organized; and (2) methods: the most appropriate way to achieve this goal.

Political ideology is a term fraught with problems, having been called "the most elusive concept in the whole of social science".[2] While ideologies tend to identify themselves by their position on the political spectrum (such as the left, the centre or the right), they can be distinguished from political strategies (e.g. populism as it is commonly defined) and from single issues around which a party may be built (e.g. civil libertarianism and support or opposition to European integration), although either of these may or may not be central to a particular ideology. Several studies show that political ideology is heritable within families.[3][4][5][6][7]

The following list is strictly alphabetical and attempts to divide the ideologies found in practical political life into several groups, with each group containing ideologies that are related to each other. The headers refer to the names of the best-known ideologies in each group. The names of the headers do not necessarily imply some hierarchical order or that one ideology evolved out of the other. Instead, they are merely noting that the ideologies in question are practically, historically, and ideologically related to each other. As such, one ideology can belong to several groups and there is sometimes considerable overlap between related ideologies. The meaning of a political label can also differ between countries and political parties often subscribe to a combination of ideologies.

Anarcho-pacifism: Anarchism but somehow supposed to be established peacefully? I mean war is bad and all, but do you really think the bourgeoise is just going to hand over their power?

Anarcho-Primitivism: Anarcho-Primitivists believe that all technology is bad and we should return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, even though that means a solid 95% of the global population would die. Also likely to worship a sun god.

Most extremist ideologies will never rise to power. The U.S. is never going to become an anarcho-primitivist or communalist state. Yet, these extremist ideologies still deserve their place. People will always deserve the right to believe in whatever bizarre, nonsensical, or logistically impossible political system they want, and that is exactly what these wacky ideologies provide.

Your donation will support the student journalists of West High School. Your contribution will allow us to purchase Scholarship Yearbooks, newsroom equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

Whether he ends up single or becomes a bad father in a miserable marriage, he may never understand the role his own ideology plays in his lot. Indeed, when his wife finally wises up and leaves him, he may become even more misogynist, further constraining his opportunities and eroding the quality of his personality.

The manosphere creates self-fulfilling prophecies. It builds meaningless relationships with women men find annoying and unworthy of respect. And then, it tells men that more misogynist bullshit is the answer.

I like what you said about mental health, trauma and low self-esteem. It's true, these things all go together, and some women just lack a strong, sturdy, stable sense of self, and because of that, they are easily drawn to men like this. Because a man like gives them the stability and security that their souls are craving, but they don't turn out to be satisfying and fulfilling relationships in the long run.

Feminists like me talk a lot about how the manosphere encourages men to abuse women. But to the men indoctrinated into this cult, this isn\u2019t a reason to avoid red pillers, Andrew Tate, and their unfuckable ilk. These dudes want access to sex and women, and they definitely don\u2019t want to be with feminists, so they\u2019re unlikely to believe what we tell them.

The truth, though, is that manosphere ideology constrains men\u2019s access to women, to sex, to quality relationships, and to hopeful futures. It\u2019s nihilistic misogyny, not feminism, ruining men\u2019s lives.

The typical manosphere loser believes that relationships exist for women to do all of the emotional and physical labor, and for men to earn the money. They see sex as something men are owed, not something men need to be good at, and certainly not something for women\u2019s enjoyment. Women are primarily physical objects and tools to them, not people, which removes their ability to be supportive partners in challenging times. Their misogyny is immediately apparent to women with self-esteem or experience with men.

This limits these men to a small group of women\u2014those who are young, with low self-esteem (and often the trauma and mental health challenges that accompany it), and with few career ambitions. These characteristics make them more likely to center and be dependent on men, and to have few interests and support outside of the relationship.

Manosphere influencers idealize these relationships. The woman is in her feminine energy. The man is in his masculine energy. It\u2019s laughable bullshit to believe that two people socialized into different ways of being and vastly divergent needs will be able to make a relationship work, but logic never stopped any misogynist from living his best and most foolish life.

Women who are willing to overlook the behavior of red pillers (or who actually like that behavior) are a very small percentage of the total population of women. So the number of women willing to date these dudes is quite small\u2014maybe 10% of women.

Those women will expect their misogynist partners to be physically attractive, stereotypically masculine, and to earn a good living. Men who meet these criteria tend to have higher self-esteem and more success, and are therefore less vulnerable to manosphere ideology. So most men seeking out this vulnerable 10% of women are not going to be able to woo them. They\u2019ll ignore the women who might actually show an interest, and end up single, alone, and resentful.

If they\u2019re lucky, they might be able to attract a young, naive, vulnerable woman who likes misogynist men. But that path is going to lead to a miserable relationship, too, because from the outset, the two parties have incompatible needs.

The woman is going to become more and more dependent on the relationship and the man. She\u2019ll likely quit working, and de-prioritize her friends. He\u2019ll find this annoying, because he\u2019s been socialized to not care about women\u2019s needs and to not know how to meet them. He\u2019ll also find her dull and uninteresting, since she has few outside interests and is likely constantly pursuing him.

She\u2019s going to eventually lose interest in the bad sex he\u2019s giving her. She\u2019ll take away or limit the thing he cares about most. And, because she has little incentive to cater to his attractiveness ideals, she might not do much with her appearance. So he\u2019s probably going to be complaining about the way she looks and begging for sex.

She\u2019ll likely get postpartum depression because of him, causing him to perceive her as too much work (and likely causing her to perceive herself as crazy and undeserving, unless she\u2019s fortunate enough to find feminism).

If she\u2019s lucky, maybe she\u2019ll discover feminism and start demanding more. He won\u2019t give it, because he doesn\u2019t respect her and because he\u2019s never learned the skills necessary to be good at relationships. They\u2019ll both be unhappy.

Or maybe she\u2019ll just keep trying to make him love her. That won\u2019t work either, because he lacks those skills. She\u2019ll pursue him more and more, become more and more needy, and he\u2019ll find her more and more annoying. They\u2019ll both be unhappy.

Because marriage extends many benefits to men, he won\u2019t want to get divorced (even if he constantly whines about how awful and unfair things are in his marriage). He hasn\u2019t learned meaningful relationships skills, though, so instead he will turn where he has always turned: to the manosphere.

These men are completely unable to see heterosexual relationships outside of a lens of dominance and abuse. That\u2019s what they\u2019ll use to try to help him. For example, they love using the concept of \u201Cdread\u201D as an antidote to a sexless marriage. They argue that women want to have sex when they dread losing their partner, and instruct men to become more attractive to inspire this dread.

It\u2019s not terrible advice, but the framing completely misses the real humanity of women\u2014and the fact that they might prefer to have sex with attractive men. The dread ideology spirals from there, though, instructing men to demand sex as a \u201Cneed\u201D (yes because nothing is more attractive than male whining). These men would rather lose their partners and live a life without sex than see women as human beings, or listen to women about the real reasons they don\u2019t want sex.

He\u2019ll be a bad father, because he believes the kids are her job. He may also undermine this job by criticizing her parenting, disrupting the routine, stepping in to scream at the kids, or only ever being the fun dad.

If they get divorced, he\u2019ll suddenly change his tune. Raising kids and tending to the home is no longer women\u2019s work. He can do 50/50 now! The man who based his entire identity around earning a paycheck will now insist that he owes her nothing, and that paying for 10% of his children\u2019s needs is literal oppression. After years of telling her only women can raise children or clean, he will tell her\u2014without any sense of irony\u2014that he can do it just as well, and should therefore get equal access to the kids he has very likely neglected for their entire lives.

3a8082e126