Multiculturalist Intolerance: Why Can't a Woman be More Like a Man?

Several years ago, an occasional contributor to American Thinker, John Kenneth Press, shared with readers a letter he had just received from a good friend, whom he called Sandra.  This was a “Dear John” letter, but with a difference.  Sandra did not now wish to see another guy, nor had she discovered that John was seeing someone else.  She was terminating the relationship, she told John, on political grounds:  his conservatism was unacceptable to her as “a global citizen.”

This was, Press wrote, “one of the most painful letters I have ever received.”  Sandra and he had been very close.  For 3 ½ years they had been the only students in their doctoral program cohort—which appears to have been, from Sandra’s prose, in education.

The letter elicited over 300 reader comments  (no longer viewable, unfortunately).  Many readers shared similar experiences.  One of the most poignant was from a doctor who had been denied access to his grandchild by his own daughter because he was a conservative.  He beliefs were presumably infectious.

I would guess that all conservatives who have written articles or blog posts or comments under their own name, or have simply shared their opinions with friends and relatives, have had similar experiences.  What is unusual in Press’s story, in my experience, is that the excommunication was announced to him.  More frequently, I think, one is unceremoniously dropped sans notification.  Emails or phone calls are not returned.  What also happens, inevitably, though one never has proof, is that applications are rejected, queries ignored, invitations to conferences not issued, etc. because of objections to one’s politics.

I can only speak for myself, but I expect that for others working in fields dominated by liberals or who have leftist friends and family, it would be unthinkable to cut off communication with someone because we find his or her political opinions obnoxious.  There are lots of other things to talk about.  (An exception would be in-your-face leftists who, without provocation, subject all and sundry to harangues on Islamaphobes, Obamaphobes, etc.)  Part of our conservatism is toleration for dissent, and we would be betraying our principles, as well as denying ourselves opportunities to socialize, were we to boycott individuals whose political views we objected to.

So here’s my question.  Based again on personal experience, those who have severed relations because my politics are unacceptable are generally women.  Men, as a rule, will either agree to disagree, or, less commonly, will argue, sometimes heatedly.  But we remain friends or acquaintances. 

This seems counterintuitive.  One might think that women would be more willing than men to set politics aside.  They would value friends and family -- affective relationships, as Sandra would put it -- more highly than do men.  Women seem, instead, to be more ideologized, more thoroughly indoctrinated.  

So why are women such ardent believers in the multiculturalist fairytale -- that, in the teeth of all evidence, there is no diversity between the genders and among the world’s races, religions, and cultures, and that predatory white males are responsible for all evil?  Why aren’t feminists, with only a few exceptions, protesting the reprehensible practices of the Islamic world that reduce women to commodities?  Shouldn’t we be boycotting and disinvesting from states that permit female genital mutilation? 

Are women simply more pious and devout -- multiculturalism now being the religion of enlightened Americans?  This, of course, is the traditional image of women from the bad old days.

What polls consistently show is that women are well to the left of men.  In 2012, Obama won the vote of 55% of women vs. 45% of men.  Among whites, it was 42% vs. 35%.

There may be another explanation.

A few days ago, an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why Retirees Should Shed Friendships that No Longer Fit.”  The author doesn’t specifically mention political differences as a reason for winnowing friends.  Expendable friendships are defined as those more grounded in the past than the present, especially those that date from “stressful or unhappy times.”  The author, of course, is a woman.  (Indignant readers were quick to suggest that on this basis she ought to consider shedding her husband, her children, and her dogs and cats.)

So like Caitlyn Jenner channeling Jayne Mansfield, Marilyn Monroe, or another Fifties femme, are women now adopting the supposed ethos of the pre-meterosexual male -- that every relationship is a business transaction?  Does this novel application of cost-benefit analysis have something to do with the ostracism of conservatives?  Friendship with a conservative could make a woman stressed and unhappy, as well as compromise her global citizenship.

Or is it, again, that women are simply more ardent devotees of the religion of multiculturalism?  If so, why?

Or am I wrong in the first place about women being more bloody-minded adherents of the reigning dogma than men?

Enlighten me, fellow pariahs.

Several years ago, an occasional contributor to American Thinker, John Kenneth Press, shared with readers a letter he had just received from a good friend, whom he called Sandra.  This was a “Dear John” letter, but with a difference.  Sandra did not now wish to see another guy, nor had she discovered that John was seeing someone else.  She was terminating the relationship, she told John, on political grounds:  his conservatism was unacceptable to her as “a global citizen.”

This was, Press wrote, “one of the most painful letters I have ever received.”  Sandra and he had been very close.  For 3 ½ years they had been the only students in their doctoral program cohort—which appears to have been, from Sandra’s prose, in education.

The letter elicited over 300 reader comments  (no longer viewable, unfortunately).  Many readers shared similar experiences.  One of the most poignant was from a doctor who had been denied access to his grandchild by his own daughter because he was a conservative.  He beliefs were presumably infectious.

I would guess that all conservatives who have written articles or blog posts or comments under their own name, or have simply shared their opinions with friends and relatives, have had similar experiences.  What is unusual in Press’s story, in my experience, is that the excommunication was announced to him.  More frequently, I think, one is unceremoniously dropped sans notification.  Emails or phone calls are not returned.  What also happens, inevitably, though one never has proof, is that applications are rejected, queries ignored, invitations to conferences not issued, etc. because of objections to one’s politics.

I can only speak for myself, but I expect that for others working in fields dominated by liberals or who have leftist friends and family, it would be unthinkable to cut off communication with someone because we find his or her political opinions obnoxious.  There are lots of other things to talk about.  (An exception would be in-your-face leftists who, without provocation, subject all and sundry to harangues on Islamaphobes, Obamaphobes, etc.)  Part of our conservatism is toleration for dissent, and we would be betraying our principles, as well as denying ourselves opportunities to socialize, were we to boycott individuals whose political views we objected to.

So here’s my question.  Based again on personal experience, those who have severed relations because my politics are unacceptable are generally women.  Men, as a rule, will either agree to disagree, or, less commonly, will argue, sometimes heatedly.  But we remain friends or acquaintances. 

This seems counterintuitive.  One might think that women would be more willing than men to set politics aside.  They would value friends and family -- affective relationships, as Sandra would put it -- more highly than do men.  Women seem, instead, to be more ideologized, more thoroughly indoctrinated.  

So why are women such ardent believers in the multiculturalist fairytale -- that, in the teeth of all evidence, there is no diversity between the genders and among the world’s races, religions, and cultures, and that predatory white males are responsible for all evil?  Why aren’t feminists, with only a few exceptions, protesting the reprehensible practices of the Islamic world that reduce women to commodities?  Shouldn’t we be boycotting and disinvesting from states that permit female genital mutilation? 

Are women simply more pious and devout -- multiculturalism now being the religion of enlightened Americans?  This, of course, is the traditional image of women from the bad old days.

What polls consistently show is that women are well to the left of men.  In 2012, Obama won the vote of 55% of women vs. 45% of men.  Among whites, it was 42% vs. 35%.

There may be another explanation.

A few days ago, an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why Retirees Should Shed Friendships that No Longer Fit.”  The author doesn’t specifically mention political differences as a reason for winnowing friends.  Expendable friendships are defined as those more grounded in the past than the present, especially those that date from “stressful or unhappy times.”  The author, of course, is a woman.  (Indignant readers were quick to suggest that on this basis she ought to consider shedding her husband, her children, and her dogs and cats.)

So like Caitlyn Jenner channeling Jayne Mansfield, Marilyn Monroe, or another Fifties femme, are women now adopting the supposed ethos of the pre-meterosexual male -- that every relationship is a business transaction?  Does this novel application of cost-benefit analysis have something to do with the ostracism of conservatives?  Friendship with a conservative could make a woman stressed and unhappy, as well as compromise her global citizenship.

Or is it, again, that women are simply more ardent devotees of the religion of multiculturalism?  If so, why?

Or am I wrong in the first place about women being more bloody-minded adherents of the reigning dogma than men?

Enlighten me, fellow pariahs.