" Our stories are symmetrical in some respects: both of us embraced radical politics in our early twenties, me on the Left and Southern on the Right."
"...the simplifying, polarising incentives baked into the contemporary internet are increasingly warping the ideologies of both Left and Right into such extreme forms"
"They were married within four months: arguably the equivalent, for the Right, of my Left-wing embrace of communes, anti-capitalist demos and niche sexual subcultures."
"Southern simply shared the same blind spots as much of the mainstream Left and Right"
" a Right-wing gender ideology every bit as over-simplified, dematerialised, and radically disconnected from the complexities of life as the disembodied Left-wing version"
"perhaps like its Left-wing analogue, the extremely online nature of this gender ideology attracts a higher than usual proportion of individuals with existing psychological issues"
My point was that not once in the article does she actually say what the "left-wing" version (of the tradwife phenomenon? "Gender ideology"? Marrying a dickhead?) actually is. It's an almost completely unsupported assumption of "both sides are just as bad as the other, yeah?" and is left almost entirely up to the reader to just know what she actually means. I mean I don't know who the writer is but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume there's an anti-trans agenda of some sort going on here. I don't actually care. What pisses me off is how it's framed as being the view from some kind of rational centre.
"...the simplifying, polarising incentives baked into the contemporary internet are increasingly warping the ideologies of both Left and Right into such extreme forms"
"They were married within four months: arguably the equivalent, for the Right, of my Left-wing embrace of communes, anti-capitalist demos and niche sexual subcultures."
"Southern simply shared the same blind spots as much of the mainstream Left and Right"
" a Right-wing gender ideology every bit as over-simplified, dematerialised, and radically disconnected from the complexities of life as the disembodied Left-wing version"
"perhaps like its Left-wing analogue, the extremely online nature of this gender ideology attracts a higher than usual proportion of individuals with existing psychological issues"
My point was that not once in the article does she actually say what the "left-wing" version (of the tradwife phenomenon? "Gender ideology"? Marrying a dickhead?) actually is. It's an almost completely unsupported assumption of "both sides are just as bad as the other, yeah?" and is left almost entirely up to the reader to just know what she actually means. I mean I don't know who the writer is but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume there's an anti-trans agenda of some sort going on here. I don't actually care. What pisses me off is how it's framed as being the view from some kind of rational centre.
