By Daryl L. Hunter • Published 2003
It is a widely accepted belief that the liberal mindset pivots on feelings of the heart (emotions) more so than critical analysis. A trait not unlike that which has become apparent to me through the interaction I have experienced with a large percentage of the women I have crossed paths with. We have come to expect spokes-folks for the women's movement to trumpet their victim-hood status and their natural hormonal pre-disposition isn't expected to act out otherwise. We have also come to expect it from their ideological brethren and empathetic allies, hormonally challenged men, as they are also victims of circumstance. These folks demonstrate my point and is intended only to illustrate my observation, and observation unencumbered by socially crippling political correctness.
Hormonally balanced men are often self-assured, confident in their abilities and confident of their world. Women on the other hand historically since the beginning of time have felt dependent on these men for their survival. Women are more inclined to make decisions based on feelings of the heart than on critical thought and men have evolved relying on critical thought in order to lead their clans and families to survival through millennia.
Liberals have adopted the "fairness demands syndrome" that
says government should give them this and government should give them that
because they feel it is only fair. They feel that it is unfair that the wealthy
are rich so they feel they have a right to empower government to re-distribute
the riches of others. Liberals feel in their heart that poverty of the mind
can be cured by government cash infusions into the pockets of those same
crippled minds extorted from the most productive of our society, emotional
An example of a block of hormonally challenged men would be many of the men of Hollywood. Everyone acknowledges that the hormonally challenged are drawn to the arts and are over represented in Hollywood and Hollywood politics. The Hollywood men that clearly do not fall into the liberal camp are Hollywood's roughest, toughest and most macho i.e. Bruce Willis, Tom Sellek, James Woods, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson, Charleston Heston Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne etc. Hence Hollywood politics must be a pop culture and societal validation of my theory of hormonal balance influencing political thought.
Liberals by and large are peaceniks crippled by fear of the unknown triggering an inability of objective analytical thought, emotional reaction. They become incapable of equating that -
Armies and bombs annihilating evil tyrants = liberty, peace and prosperity
Their objectivity is also crippled by
their "fairness demands syndrome" which dictates their bogus level playing
field rationalization. Granted these are feelings from their heart.
Another block of the hormonally challenged
would be our ivory tower university academics; over time evolution has dealt
them gifted minds negating the need for a physiology powered by testosterone.
This facilitates a mental dynamic sympathetic to the liberal "fairness demands syndrome" evidenced
by their faulty socialism ideals.
As I watch the talking heads on television I can't help but notice that the imbecile'ke, indefensible arguments based on feelings of the heart put forward by the liberal commentators and pandering legislators appear to me. effeminate by nature. You couple their argumentative rationalizations with their often-present mannerisms of victim-hood and the appearance they create is an unflattering and sappy image lacking the elements of testosterone balance.
Liberal strategists have assembled a voting block coalition rife with unlikely special interest group partners. Hardhats have joined hands with the limp wristed, environmentalists with the AFL-CIO, trial lawyers with motor-voter illegal aliens, academics and the uninformed but fearful, Native Americans with apathetic bureaucracy, the NAACP and southern democrats, wistful felons and law enforcement unions, womanizing Presidents and feminists. I guess the old axiom is true that politics makes strange bedfellows.
At the risk of being branded a Darwinist, sexist, redneck, homophobe, warmonger, I have based my theory on my anecdotal observation. I acknowledge my lack of any anthropological background and my objectivity is crippled by my life experience. Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant, as it is undeniable that this is the way these people appear to me, and I bet I'm not alone in this honest but politically incorrect observation.
In defense of many of today's women not all fall into my historical generalization as generalizations by definition exclude the exceptional. This is only a layman's theory to float into the arena of ideas.