You should date a Libtard Feminist

Try it—you'll like it!

Yesterday my talented substack auntie

Lirpa Strike

(who for sure deserves your sub) published an intriguing socio-taxonomy entitled Feminists and their Subtypes.

This article got me thinking quite a lot about the various ways in which I diverge from mainstream Redpill thought, as well as the respects in which I’ve evolved through the years on gender-adjacent issues, foremost of which being my stance that promiscuous feminist libtard women actually make for hugely more pleasing romantic partners, being significantly more feminine and submissive by disposition than ostensibly “trad” women (and really just conservative gals of all stripes).

Now, my impression is this take is already somewhat ubiquitous among Millennial rightists in our sphere (IIRC

Dan Baltic

and I discussed the matter during his episode on my pod last year), but it seems distressingly less common among Zoomers, so I figured I’d write a piece laying out some of the reasons I feel this way in case there are any tender young lads in my audience still holding out for that racist virgin.

---

I’ll preface the article with a quick disclaimer that I’m targeting this piece very specifically at extremely online racists—just not sub-125 IQ Twitter groids so much as neurotic hyperverbal spergs who display trait openness at or above the eightieth percentile relative to the general population.

If you’re in that demo (and if you’re on my email list there’s a pretty excellent chance you are) then you almost certainly identify with your “beliefs” and “ideas” orders of magnitude more than most fellows—let alone the average woman—and as a consequence it makes some sense for you to assume that ideological alignment is a necessary condition for thoroughgoing romantic compatibility.

…but only SOME sense, as it also betrays an irredeemably wrongheaded understanding of women, ideology, and the basics of human personality.

---

First off basically no one actually “chooses” their beliefs, man or woman—ideology is mostly just downstream of personality, and therefore largely preordained by genetics and early childhood experience (if you want evidence to that effect I suggest my nigga

Dmitry

’s fantastic work on biofoundationalism, as I myself am far too low in trait conscientiousness to actually include references in any of my own essays).

So what do conservatives and liberals look like cognitively speaking?

Cognitive liberals are relatively high in trait openness and low in conscientiousness, whereas with conservatives it’s the opposite. Cognitive conservatives are also lower in neuroticism and tend to display both a lower time preference (e.g. a higher savings rate and fewer lifetime sex partners) and a fairly pronounced ingroup bias.

Perhaps the most significant difference, however, is that liberals are dominated by cuddly empathic impulses stemming from their gay little anterior cingulate cortex, whereas conservatives tend to be driven mostly by feelings of disgust produced by their brutish and chud-coded amygdala.

---

Now, it’s important to note that when we talk about ‘cognitive liberals’ and ‘cognitive conservatives’ it doesn’t necessarily map cleanly to the breakdown observed in extant political coalitions—particularly during a period of realignment like our own.

Indeed, it’s actually quite common for certain Liberal Feminists—think the high status PMC / girlboss subset quite literally designated as such in Lirpa’s article—to display extreme cognitive conservatism despite being rabidly leftist in their observed politics. But the crucial thing is this type of woman is rabidly leftist specifically because she’s revolted by the low status of right wing politics—an indubitably amygdalic response interfacing with the notorious womanly fixation on social harmony.

But obviously I’m not saying go after pantsuits in pussy hats—I’m saying go after the Lana-enjoying granola bitch with a septum piercing and sleeve tat and car full of dirty panties and empty makeup containers and Chick-Fil-A bags. Because among the younger half of Gen Z such women are actually quite likely to be Trump supporters if they’re in a red state, but at least on the coasts they’ll almost certainly vote blue and display avowedly feminist perspectives on most issues, and if that’s the case it would be a genuine travesty for you to avoid such women for that reason alone.

One reason for this is that unlike her genetically determined cognition a woman’s actual real world political affiliation is hugely contingent on social environment; highly conscientious and agreeable women especially tend to place a tremendous premium on conventional respectability, and in mainstream Girl Culture—at least on the coasts, though even there it’s for sure changing—it’s long been kind of unthinkable NOT to be a libtard (or at least some libtard-approved species of centre-rightist).

You need to understand that the most feminine sort of women don’t even think of ideas propositionally in the same way you do—for these broads literally all utterances exist first and foremost to maintain a comfy vibe, coordinate group behavior, obfuscate potentially inflammatory status inequities, cultivate plausible deniability, and so on. And that’s not even to suggest they don’t believe what they say, because they 100% do; it’s more that what they believe is fantastically context-dependent; because for them “truth” is basically just whatever will avoid a fight (or alternatively create one if she’s feeling a little mischievous). Hating these women for being libtarded is kind of like hating them for wearing makeup or liking cute kitties or something.

---

Anyway, circling back to my central thesis: one of the primary reasons liberal women are better than conservatives is that they’re usually far lower in trait conscientiousness, because highly conscientious women are kind of just insufferable.

For one thing their disgust sensitivity is through the fucking roof—they’ll think all your fetishes are gross and also have this incredibly simplistic understanding of masculinity in which you’re a weak faggot who deserves to be tortured to death if you e.g. have soft hands or pay someone to put together your furniture or some shit.

It won’t be nearly as bad if she’s also high openness and low agreeableness (a great number of spergy girls like Rose fall into this category, as does the “Coltish Girl” archetype I coined for King of the Orcs), though in my experience even these women tend to get the ick if you, say, insist on wearing a perfectly functional wife beater that happens to have a small hole in it, or refuse to tie your shoes in public when someone tells you your shoes are untied.

And even the ones above ninetieth percentile in trait openness have an incredibly hard time vibing with a fellow’s emotional erraticism or sadomasochistic impulses, often displaying very silly reactions like getting their feelings hurt if you call them “bitch” or “whore” during a blowjob or something.

And now that I think about it, literally EVERY GIRL who’s ever gotten her feelings hurt about something I called her in bed has been some kind of conservative, and there’s no way that’s an accident. I think the phenomenon is for sure a function of conscientiousness; basically high con niggas have a relatively monotonic identity and can’t compartmentalize half as easily, whereas low con niggas (especially if they’re also high in openness and neuroticism) will effectively just have multiple personalities (phenomenologically contiguous though they may be).

And so when you make some silly art hoe puke on your cock and proceed to act like Winnie the Pooh immediately after ejaculating she’ll likely find it vaguely endearing or at least understandable, whereas conservative women will either get their feelings hurt (if she’s a high agreeableness wifey type) or think you’re an enormous faggot for breaking kayfabe and going soft on her (the low agreeableness Dagny Taggart gals).

Precisely the same principle applies to saying nigger.

You want a girl who’ll be cool with that? Or, hell—actually get turned on by it?

Find a bitch with a septum piercing.

That or a huge retarded sleeve tattoo.

Both of those things are reliable signals for high openness and low consciousness, and sometimes also low agreeableness in the context of a more right wing social ecology; at least subconsciously girls often take them on specifically as filters so as to ensure they don’t get hit on by too many spiritually Nebraskan squares.

…which come to think of it is just the distaff version of why I love saying nigger.

---

Anyway at this point a lot of you fags are no doubt chimping out at me thinking “Walter won’t a libtard girl just be super duper slutty and just cheat on me?”

So let’s assess each of those queries separately.

If she’s cognitively liberal she probably will be markedly sluttier, yeah—but if you’re the Type of Guy I’m writing this article for then you’ll almost certainly stop caring about that eventually and even come to see it as a plus.

Why?

• It’s normal to be insecure around promiscuous women when you yourself are freshly post-incel, but by the time you’re like 30 your own number will be WAY higher than very nearly any girl’s unless she’s unironically just a prostitute, as even the sauciest Jezebel can’t exactly keep up with a capable young buck doing the rounds; the appetite simply isn’t there. An amusing anecdote to that effect— when I first dated Rebecca back in 2020 I was only at 5 compared to her 22 IIRC and found that dynamic more than a bit discomfiting, whereas when we hooked up last year she’d only added like four to her own number while I’d entered triple digit territory¹ and suddenly SHE was the one treating ME like a degen.

• An experienced girl has probably been exposed to just about everything there is to be exposed to sexually, so you won’t need to break her in with any of your more disgusting fetishes, which is honestly a really gargantuan pain in the ass with inexperienced womyn and functionally speaking kind of ruins sex with them altogether (you’ll recall this is why I lost practically all sexual interest in Layla after she dropped the virg bomb).

• A slut is also far more likely to tolerate a side hoe, or even actively encourage such depredations (mayhaps inclined by her own sapphic yearnings?)

Anyway IMO girls get kind of thousand cock starey at 40+ (at least if we’re talking twenty-somethings), but I’ve also hooked up with very few girls in that range and it seems most won’t ever break more than a few dozen—likely because after a certain point additional sexual novelty simply offers women virtually zero hedonic return.

See, your modal libtardette will have a few hoe phases for rebound dick or to feel “empowered” or for gay womanly self harm reasons or w/e, but assuming she doesn’t actually become a prostie then by the time her number hits 25 or so she’ll invariably be drifting towards either monogamy, biddyhood, or dykery, and if she wants to be slutty will often prefer to e.g. hit up a FWB or hook up with an ex rather than going through the hassle of finding an entirely new nigga lying about his height on Hinge.

So let’s proceed to the second query—will she cheat on you?

Intuitively I’d hazard that the brute probability is slightly higher than with a more temperamentally conservative girl. But in this situation the caveats are everything.

See, in the vast majority of cases men cheat to stay and women cheat to leave—it’s pretty uncommon even for relatively slutty women to just fuck some rando stranger because she’s horny or craves erotic novelty despite also having her heart in the relationship and wanting it to continue. Usually she’s just branch swinging and a little too high time preference to break up first, or it’s some kind of messy situation with an ex or close friend or coworker. And this is the primary reason why cognitively conservative women are less likely to cheat: she’ll be lower time preference and more insistent on breaking up first if she’s unhappy, and will likely also stay in an unhappy relationship longer, because by dint of high conscientiousness she’s more inclined to honor her relationship and its attendant social obligations.

And at first that seems like a feature and not a bug. But unfortunately we don’t live in the Handmaid’s Tale, as hot as that would be, and so the results of this amount to:

• Dead bedrooms

• Lots of gay nagging

• Bae emotionally abusing your kids to get back at you vicariously

• And then if she does cheat on you? She makes it hurt A LOT worse, often prioritizing your pain over her own pleasure / branch-swinging prospects.

Also working against you is the fact that conservative women are usually far more likely to grow dissatisfied in a relationship. Or at least the secular and high IQ ones without cloyingly high agreeableness are; the super bubbly sorority / church bitches probably make entirely splendid Stepford material, but I seldom want to have sex with a girl more than twice (let alone invest time / money / energy into her) if her IQ is under 115 and she isn’t talented at being kind of subtly mean to me.

Moreover high IQ + low agreeableness cognitive conservative broads pretty much ALWAYS get the ick the moment you stop acting like Batman around them; it’s simply built into their cognitive architecture. You’ll trip or get a little flustered when someone cuts you off in traffic or some shit like that and suddenly you’re a leper.

Meanwhile libtard girls have veritable mountains of Ick Tolerance once you fuck em a few times and get a bit of oxytocin in their noggin. They’re also quite a lot more likely to get palpably aroused by feats of verbal dexterity, whereas being too loquacious is often actively repulsive to cognitively conservative gals, who most of the time strongly prefer stoic chudbots and unironically think it’s gay to not speak in a monotone.

---

So until now I’ve mostly been talking politics and haven’t really hit the feminist angle, which you’ll recall was the entire point of Lirpa’s article. So let’s end the piece on that.

Basically I think when Red Pillers hear a girl calling herself a feminist it usually ends up being a pretty dire category error.

Because as stated above, women don’t usually think of ideas propositionally—they think of them more as vibes. That’s a lot less the case with older women / autismas / Jewesses, but neurotypical shiksas < 25 don’t really have any propositional cognition to speak of.

Hell, a lot of them find the very notion of “ideas” kind of icky and incel-coded!

Young girls simply don’t give a fuck about policy, and the ones spergy / Jewy enough to serve as an exception to that rule will usually either be sort of phallosympathetic (if not herself actively contemptuous of normgroid womyn) or alternatively some kind of RadFem depending on whether or not her uncle molested her.

For most of these chicks when they call themselves “feminist” they’re basically just communicating that Boys Should Be Nice To Me. And oftentimes the more feminine and dispositionally submissive / obsessed with rape fantasies she is the more ardently she’ll identify with the Feminist label, because she’s essentially just defining her own femininity in terms of being Small and Scared in Frightening Oppressive Men’s World and pluckily insisting that she’s on Team Girl.

But the funny thing about Team Girl is nobody on it particularly wants to “win” (at least not in any hard masculine sense) or is even remotely capable of doing so. The ackshual point—invariably implicit and unconscious, as with just about everything in that realm—is more to put up exactly enough of a fight to ensure the eventual victor is worthy and didn’t simply stumble into her pussy.

Because you can’t really negotiate with women—they despise being transacted with. Even in nonsexual contexts it makes them feel like a whore, which is why debating women basically never works unless you’re very deliberately using it as an avenue to flirt and argue more like the Cheshire Cat than Ben Shapiro. What they actually want is to be seduced; cajoled; conquered—and not infrequently groomed and manipulated. That’s what actually registers as a clean kill. The ledger isn’t material as it is with men, but rather emotional; narrative; thematic.

And at the end of the day the Feminist who approaches masculinity in the spirit of overt antagonism isn’t merely approaching you in good faith as an adversary pursuing her self-interest; she’s rather adorably placing her own neck on the chopping block—no doubt by design, at least if you dig deep enough. At this point it’s hardly a secret that the most rabid Feminazis also have the most theatrically grotesque rape fantasies.

What men need to understand about women more than literally anything else is that things are very seldom as they seem with them. Most of the time it’s literally the opposite—especially when you look at how they project value, assert and hold power, and go on to weaponize said power against men.

Which brings me to this final thought:

I’ve gone after a fair few girls in my day, and have taken my fair share of wounds from broads on both sides of the cognitive aisle. But basically all of the ones that left a truly meaningful scar came from a cognitively conservative sheila with a low partner count and no tattoos or weirdo face piercings. Because when girls like that turn on you they know how to actually make it hurt—hell, I’m still smarting from the first fucking time it happened to me, which incidentally is how I got around to writing The Con.

But mayhaps I haven’t convinced you and you still want to hold out for a less experienced chick with a solidly rightist temperament. Obviously that’s fine, and I won’t act like I can’t see the appeal or understand the tradeoff logic. You’re just a bit of a tard if you unironically think a right wing virgin is any less likely to betray you.

Take it from someone who knows.

1. Yes,

Piotr Pachota

, I did it again