they seem to be connected
what makes them soo attractive ?
why are they such hard core sexy man love partners in the same ideological bed ?
They are connected; both are forms of supremacism.
The brain chemistry of empowerment is attractive.
Remember that at the top of the bigot pyramid, somewhere, is a man: In the U.S., for instance, we have the (angry) white (cishet) male (anticatholic) Christian has traditionally enjoyed the most privilege. When these American birds of ominous feather gather, we can try the catch-all, men who hate everything, and the women who love them.
An interesting example: The terf wars landed in my Twitter feed a couple weeks ago, and what stands out most is the idea that this so-called radicalism is apparently really popular feminism in Her Majesty's dominion, and it's only when I look at the proverbial everything else that goes on in this period that it really does make sense: There is a reason why such feminism should be popular among the British, as it strives to help women achieve their proper place and potential under a man. Of course British radicalism aims to serve traditional power.
The thing is that the world is scary, the future unknown, and new concepts, influences, and outcomes alter people's understanding of how the future should go. As more of the world around a person seems harmful, and as individuals perceive dwindling empowerment, some will reach or lash out in order to establish a refernce point; the empowerment or authority to leave that mark, sometimes, is all they feel they have left. This becomes the measure of their empowerment. Not every domestic abuser was known antisocial before it started; even the petty rewards of, say, what goes on around here, eventually drain even righteous utility. Even if we think we have found an object worthy of such fear and scorn, there comes a point at which exercises in futility are simply about gratification. And then at some point, they're not, and people are left with whatever skeletal justifications they don't seem to have actually explicitly considered, before. Those who dig in, time and again, to hold and even push the line, essentially gamble against becoming what they contest.
Consider that at some point over the last couple years, it started feeling like I was bludgeoning the noncompetent; to the other, noncompetency, by that assessment, would be alarmingly widespread. It's just that most people don't go out of their way to advertise it like that. The part that I don't get, though, is that if they are right, then why do they act like the guilty? It's as if some part of them still recognizes they are wrong, and they cannot silence that voice of dissent.
A note crossing my Twitter feed a couple weeks ago made the point: Should he accidentally accuse a casual drinker of alcoholism, the one thing the other will not do is prove him wrong by going on a five-day bender. Some years ago, a neighbor here at Sciforums tried the stupid line that Obamanoia was a policy argument, that the first black president forced non-racist conservatives to look racist because he was just so dirty and scary. That manner of thinking has come so far in American conservative circles it's now a political cartoon trope all its own. Of all the arguments I've heard, over the years, about how people were forced to do something antisocial—(
e.g., oppose human rights for women, homosexuals, transgender, nonchristians, nonwhites, &c.)—because someone else failed to meet their self-gratifying expectations, these latter-day iterations just aren't the same. That is, I accept that people had some stuff to work out about men who have sex with other men, but the Gay Fray really was about women, and we're this far along the way, and I just don't believe pretenses of traditionalism that can't properly recognize certain basic realities; they're disqualified for being either disingenuous or noncompetent, and any reasonably capable, well-intended human being ought to at least be able to acknowledge certain obvious reality. (To the other, it's not like I can make that disqualification stick in any practical sense.)
Even still, however people were tripping up about the aesthetics of donut punching, flaming lisps, and mustachioed effeminance, it is easy enough to note the men have not been chasing each other down in public restrooms, demanding to examine each other's prostates.
More to the point, the misogyny was already there, and whatever confusion we might acknowledge about failures to comprehend homosexuality, it wasn't the Civil War that turned whites against blacks; nor was the arrival of oral contraception what moved men to presume they had some right to dominate women.
When someone needs the devices of supremacism, they become inherently more sympathetic to other forms of supremacism. It wasn't so long ago, for instance, that someone I know made the point of reminding that he does not fit a particluar description of the average white supremacist, and even went so far as to suggest that anyone who says otherwise is in lala land, but the really weird thing about it was the tumbleweed and crickets moment spent wondering at the straw man, because that was never the point except according to his own fallacy. There is also a microcosmic example hinted therein; if he couldn't understand the discussion he countenanced, it turns out that his usual response is to establish his reference point for empowerment by constructing a windmill and tilting with it. And there are times that seems incredibly particular and personal, but it's also really common human behavior, such that yes, we can occasionally witness it in naked performance. At any rate, his most apparent connection to white supremacism is the fact of being a white male, and thus just sort of imbued in it, but also and more immediately and apparently influential is his sympathy on at least a couple fronts in his life with the language of usurped victimization. One of the reasons he sounds so sympathetic to white supremacism is because he is sympathetic to the rhetorical structures; this sympathy, in turn, seemingly derives from his need for such rhetoric in other aspects of his life. And, again, the underlying behavior is very much human; what any of us do with it is a separate question.
And toward that question, we see what many people do with the supremacist devices of prevailing historical narrative within a society.
The less empowered people feel compared to the unknowns of larger-scale considerations, the more willing they seem to be to take it out on each other. And in such spectra,
ceteris paribus is not in effect; as disenchanted with the system as we are supposed to pretend eighty thousand American voters in three states were in order to vote for even worse, it's also true that this bloc we might examine can generally say, well, at least they ain't black. And many can say at least they ain't women. Because as much as corporations suck, DUI adjudication is a racket, privacy is an illusion, and you can be fired for no good reason, same goes for women and people of color, and it is impossible to watch this part of our American struggle play out without noticing the conflict between the call for economic justice, and argument against disrupting economic justice by upsetting the powers that be by talking about things like racism or sexism or classism. That is to say, sure, we hear the economic justice pitch, but neither are we surprised, in the end, those voters chose against women and people of color; in the end, their pitch for economic justice was just the latest excuse for what they want and need, and every time now more than ever.
Indeed, for these it's an ouroboros: They perceive themselves economic victims, so they attack others who have it harder, with the effect of reinforcing the institutions they perceive victimizing them economically, and thus blame those others they attacked for the economic victimization, and 'round about and 'round about and 'round about they go.
So the only thing they get out of it is the thrill of harming others, which they somehow see as some just entitlement. Which, in turn, really does sound rather quite attractive as brain chemistry goes. Too bad about that apparent neurotic conflict though. Of course, they can just blame it on melanin and estrogen.
And at some point, it really is that loopy.
