A good man is still apparently hard to find. A good liberal man, even harder. That’s according to a viral TikTok video shared by user @ms_petch.
The thirtysomething singleton is between a rock and a hard place dating-wise, finding that the liberal men she dates don’t open doors or pick up tabs and lack the masculine impulse to raise and protect a family. Conservative men, she says, are chivalrous and family-oriented, but she wants to be “respected for my independence, have my own autonomy in the relationship and not be conformed to the traditional female homemaker, childbearing role.”
She called this one of her saddest realizations in recent memory.
If you happen to be an autonomous woman married to a conservative man, you’re probably scratching your head right now. But maybe spare a thought for @ms_petch. Her left-lib milieu has convinced her only progressive men will grant her the independence she craves. Meanwhile, eons of evolution deep within her reptile cortex cry out for a manly man. It’s a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
Now she finds herself seeking a twofer; a unicorn of a man who is one-half guy on the left—let’s call him Dorian—and one-half GI Joe, pictured at right…
It’s a tough spot to be in so I’m offering @ms_petch some free advice. Here goes…
Girlfriend, I understand your dilemma. On the one hand, you’re thinking GI Joe is a honey but you’re no trad wife! Also, Dorian doesn’t exactly light you on fire. He’s probably sworn off kids because… climate change. Still, his progressive credentials are—unlike his body—rock solid.
Maybe you’re wishing science could somehow fuse their DNA to create a super hybrid species of male that can both kill an icky spider and will spend Saturday evening curled up on the sofa in Teddy Ruxpin onesie, sipping chamomile tea and rewatching The Notebook. But we don’t have time for science fiction. Your biological clock is ticking!
First things first: you need to mix things up socially. Maybe spend less time with people who don’t turn diverging opinions into a Montague-Capulet-style blood feud. You shouldn’t need to be told that (most) conservative men are OK with their wives being independent.
The question is, can you bag one? Because good conservative men—the kind who pick up tabs, open doors, raise and protect families and ‘allow’ their wives to go to work in the morning and freely hold opinions different from theirs—might be turned off by your anti-conservative bias. That blatant bias is why Twitter user @spenceramansick called you “the reason my kitty litter company is gonna make me rich.”
In the meantime, @ms_petch, you’ve given me a great idea for a screenplay—a Freaky Friday-style switcheroo wherein Dorian wakes up in GI Joe’s body and vice versa. Hilarity ensues when GI Joe transforms into an effete urbanite and Dorian develops an interest in the gun range.
Their respective girlfriends are mystified, especially when Dorian (now embodied by GI Joe) starts gallantly opening doors and picking up tabs.
America, someone once said, is a nation of hucksters. The woke, others have observed, are prone to drama queenery. Combine the two and you get this:
The realtor referred to in the story is Bob McCranie. His grift aim is to “safely” convey members of the LGBTQ+ community to a more welcoming state, presumably before the Fugitive LGBTQ+ Patrol captures and brings them back. He does this by listing his clients’ Texas homes and connecting them with agents in other states.
If those sound to you like services any real estate agent offers, Twitter 100 percent agrees. The social media site was merciless in its mockery of the KFOR narrative, accusing the NBC affiliate of a) shamelessly honing in on black history and b) elevating real estate agents into the realm of savior.
A user with the handle @AJKay pointed out that “abolitionists who risked their lives to save actual slaves did not receive a three percent commission” while @Tribble_Bait wondered if “Pride got jealous of Juneteenth.” Quite a few Twitter users pointed out that for an underground operation, this one wasn’t very hush-hush.
The Twitter post also landed KFOR on the List, a weekly roundup of tweets from people who, according to List author Siraj Hashmi, “deserve to have their phones taken away.” Not the Bee, which specializes in true things indistinguishable from satire, included this photo in its coverage of KFOR’s post…
Despite the mockery, a few were impressed by Bob McCrainie’s marketing acumen, pointing out that it’s not every day someone finds both a niche market and an opportunity to exploit progressive grievances.
Speaking of progressive grievances…
English is a workhorse of a language. Big and versatile, always expanding and updating—more so than other widely-used languages (I’m told). Yet no matter its adaptability, its speakers have yet to settle on a name for half the world’s population. Efforts such as “menstruators” and “uterus-havers” seemed to have fizzled. Last month someone at Johns Hopkins University decided to give it another go.
Seeking a definition for those born with two X chromosomes for its online glossary of LGBTQ terms, this hub of scientific research landed on “non-man.” According to its updated terminology, a “Lesbian” is a “non-man attracted to non-men.” A ‘Gay Man’ is apparently just an ordinary man (attracted to other men)…
Following an uproar, JHU quickly pulled this new ‘lesbian’ definition from its website. Now the university, along with the rest of the world, is back at the drawing board.
TBH, ‘non-man’ never had much hope of catching on. If you’re neither a man nor a woman, doesn’t that sort of make you non-binary? In which case, what do we call them? Also, we’ve been told that trans women ***are*** women and therefore can’t be defined as non-men. Unless you want to call them non non-men? This is hard!
University of Cincinnati student Olivia Krolczyk found out the hard way that ‘biological female’ won’t do either. The chemistry major recently posted on TikTok that using the term in her Gender Studies assignment earned her a big fat zero. According to her prof, the use of ‘biological woman’ is “exclusionary and not allowed in this course as it further reinforces heteronormativity.”
There has been some talk of “assigned female at birth,” or AFAB, but that feels a little over-burdened and bureaucratic, as though gender is something hastily rubberstamped in the delivery room.
Which brings us back to square one. I’m not worried. The high minds of academia have proven what amazing things they can do with language. Sooner or later, they’ll come up with something.
That IS a great idea for a movie!
Liz, how about a post to tell the story of your curious handle? Or have I missed it? (Fashion, Brenda)