"South Korea, Germany, the uk, the us, everywhere. You look everywhere you can get this data. Women are becoming more liberal, more progressive, while men are becoming more conservative and regressive. Young men and women now increasingly inhabit separate spaces and experience separate cultures burn Murdoch rights. And the worry is as young men and young women inhabit separate spaces and vote for different kinds of people and hold different political beliefs, women increasingly aren't gonna wanna fuck with men who don't think women should have the right to get an abortion to use birth control work outside the home or vote.

I want you to hear what Joel Wein had to say recently. He's a prominent Republican activist in Texas, A GOP, conservative activist in Texas. He's also a pastor because Texas and here he is being interviewed last weekend about the future conservatives want.

"In fact, we would not have one Democrat president in the last 50 years if women couldn't vote. So I don't want women to vote because I want strong marriages, I want cohesive households, I want representative government all the way down to the family and I also want babies not murdered. Yeah, I don't want drag queen story hour. I don't want rainbow jihad and none of that could happen if women couldn't vote."

They want to take us back to a time when a woman couldn't exist legally, socially, financially, professionally without a husband. That was a system. That was the system we had until about 50, 60 years ago. That was a system where a shitty man could always get himself a wife and they wanna bring that back one way. They're gonna bring that back doing away with no fault divorce. So when he talks about strong marriages, nobody doesn't say loving marriages. He says strong marriages, strong like a high security prison, strong as in inescapable so a woman can't get out of a marriage, which might, you know, give a woman second, third or four thoughts about getting into a marriage with a man in the first place.

Alright, that's the future conservatives want. Here's the future. I think conservatives are gonna get straight. Women are gonna get together, pool their resources and go in on a nice house or a mansion. There are trend stories out there about this happening already think golden girls, but instead of 50 somethings, 30 somethings. And I think as I've already said on the show, that some of these women are gonna decide that they would rather share one good man with their best girlfriends than marry one shitty man themself, especially if right winger succeeded making those shitty marriages harder to get out of by ending no fault divorce, getting yourself a time share boyfriend or going in together with your girlfriends on a lease to own timeshare husband.

That's gonna sound better and better every time Reverend Joel Wein opens his filthy fucking mouth. And ladies, if you're gonna let go of your hangups around polyamory, you might wanna think about maybe letting go of your hangups around kink because getting yourself a nice progressive sub guy who really wants an FLR, that's a female led relationship means you'll never have to wash a dish or mop a floor in your own house ever again. You know one of women's legitimate beefs about straight relationships is the way domestic responsibilities, household chores fall disproportionately onto the shoulders of women in opposite sex relationships. Even with guys who say that they are progressive and want an equal partnership, those chores have a way of becoming women's work.

Ladies in an FLR with a sub guy, you can flip that script. This is the future. Liberals want progressive women living in mansions with their best friends and a hot guy who literally gets a boner every time he's told to go and clean the bathrooms."

Excerpt form Dan's opening monologue:

"The editors of the Washington Post, just want what's best for you? And that means marriage. There's a lot of social science out there backing up the idea that marriage is what's best for you for everyone because married people live longer, especially married men, married straight men.

Actually, when you drill down into the data, the benefits of marriage, at least a straight kind are less pronounced for women. As the social scientists like to say, married straight men get a much bigger longevity bump than married women do. The theory goes, married men less likely to take stupid risks, more likely to see a doctor at the urging of their wives. While married, women are more likely to be murdered by their husbands, and murder has a way of erasing the health benefits of marriage. Anyway, in an unsigned editorial published under the headline, if attitudes don't shift, a political dating mismatch will threaten marriage. The posts editors raise the alarm they open by noting something others have noted.

Namely that it's getting harder for straight women to find suitable partners as straight men are suffering from higher unemployment, lower rates of educational attainment, more drug addiction and deaths of despair. On top of that, some straight women insist on making it a little harder for themselves out there by refusing to date men who are shorter than they are or make less money than they do. And now heaped on top of all of those complications, more women than men identify as liberal or progressive. The gender gap in voting has never been wider and we've been sorting ourselves ideologically and geographically, which is making the future of marriage look even more dire because increasingly people don't wanna socialize with much less date fucker marry people they disagree with politically and that goes double.

For Democrats, the post cites a survey of college students. Gen Z college students had found that 71% of Democrats would not date someone with opposing views. The post didn't cite the stat on Republicans who might be willing to date Democrats. I looked the survey up. 70% of Republican young men were willing to date liberal women. So when the post writes this mismatch means that someone will need to compromise. They mean women, democratic women will need to compromise and if women won't compromise, if women won't bend, if women aren't as willing to marry men who vote for rapists as men are to marry women who object to being raped, the only other option left to women according to the Washington Post, we'll be not getting married at all, huh?

Seems to me that might not be the only other option. But first, a couple of things. I do think women should be willing to compromise on height. Take it from a guy who's into guise. We all can't be with guys who are taller than we are. An income. Take it from a guy into guys. We all can't be with guys who make more money than we do, but I can understand if women were given a choice between a Trump supporter and no one why a lot of women would choose no one. Actually, a lot of women are choosing no one. Marriage rates are declining fast, thanks in part to the political dynamics, the post decries, because while there are women out there willing to settle for shorter guys who make less money, those guys by the way, make great stay-at-Home Dads.

A lot of women won't settle for guys who can't wait to vote for their rapist. Again, those guys don't have Riz short for charisma. Oxford University presses Word of the Year. Those guys have anti ris, which is why seems to me that the real winners of this growing divide in the long run are gonna be straight feminist poly guys, real ones not Brooklyn based. Joseph Smith wannabes and knit hats. They knit themselves actual feminist, straight poly guys. It may not be the compromise the Post was fantasizing about. The Post wants women to overlook politics to downplay those political differences and focus instead on they don't say the unnamed redeeming qualities, I guess, of guys who backed the party that stripped women of their right to choose and wanna slap the contraception out of your hands and have banned interstate travel in some red states by women of childbearing age and are right now trying to send an Ohio woman to jail for the crime of having a miscarriage."