This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.
Picture a small isolated village, many centuries ago. Three women and two men are looking to get married. One of those men would make a great husband and one would make a mediocre husband.
The woman who ends up with the great husband is likely to have a thriving family and a happy life.
The woman who ends up with the mediocre husband is likely to have a family, but members of that family might one day starve to death, or die to bandits or wild animals. Plus there’s going to be a lot more stress and less happiness.
The woman who ends up single likely won’t have a good life (we’re talking centuries ago here, not 2026). Also, not procreating is the biological equivalent of death.
Suppose you’re the most naturally attractive woman of the three. Then, as that prettiest woman, how do you act? What worldview and mindset would be beneficial for you to have?
Well, you focus on trying to date / court and then marry the more appealing of the two men. You go about this in a straightforward, socially accepted way. You’re likely religious. You’re likely positive about men in general. You’re likely traditional. You’re likely marriage minded and family minded. If you do this, you’ll likely end up with the great husband (because you’re the most attractive woman) and a good place within the community.
As this prettiest woman, you’re probably a bit skeptical about immigration, because you can get what you want simply by marrying, and immigrants are potentially dangerous or destabilizing. Sure, there’s a possibility one of the immigrants might be a great man you could marry, but you already can just marry a great man without additional immigration and its risks.
So in other words, if you’re the prettiest of the three women, you more or less behave as a modern right-wing woman does. That’s in your self-interest.
Okay, now suppose you’re the ugliest women of the three. How do you act? What worldview and mindset would be beneficial for you to have?
Well, suppose you’re the ugliest woman and you behave just as the beautiful / right-wing woman would. Then the two men will simply choose the other two women and you’ll end up alone -- which really wasn’t a fun time centuries ago.
Because it’s many centuries ago, you have few options to distinguish yourself from the other women. You likely can’t read, can’t travel (much), don’t have a lot of education, don’t have a real career or business, etc. So you have few options to improve yourself in a way that would make men choose you over the prettier women. Sure, you can learn how to cook, but the other women know how to cook too.
The most effective option you have is to pretend to befriend the other women, when in reality you become their “frenemy” (friend enemy). You offer to cut their long, beautiful hair for them, they accept, and then you cut it quite short, so that they’re less pretty. And yes, women do this, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692300329X
You tell them that men are horrible and you advise them to focus on other things than marriage for now. If they insist on focusing on marriage anyway, you advise them to play aloof and hard-to-get. You advise them to let the man jump through hoops, and to not have sex with him too quickly.
So in other words, you sabotage the competition (the prettier women). And meanwhile try to jump in bed with the desirable man as quickly as possible and hope that causes him to marry you (whether out of love, lust, duty, social obligation or religious obligation).
Congratulations! By backstabbing the other women, you’ve prevented an unhappy life with no procreation (the biological equivalent of death) and have secured a happy future for yourself.
The ugly women who acted like this procreated, whereas the ugly women who acted “honorably” and competed fairly... didn’t procreate.
However, there’s one issue. If the ugliest woman is consciously and intentionally going around trying to sabotage the prettier women, in a small village where everyone knows everyone... then she’s likely to get very serious pushback. And her attempts to sabotage the other women will fail because no one will trust her or listen to her.
So what’s optimal as that ugliest woman is to go around telling the other women that men are thrash, in order to sabotage the other women... and to THINK that she’s doing that in a morally righteous effort to fight evil men / oppression / patriarchy / whatever. (Biologist Trivers argued that people are good at deceiving others because they deceive themselves first.)
It’s ideal if she just follows her emotions / what resonates, so that she can act in a way that sabotages the other women, without being aware that she’s doing that. And it’s ideal if she doesn’t rationally think or introspect too much, because then she’ll realize what she’s doing, and then she can no longer backstab the other women as effectively.
So consciously she either thinks that she’s fighting for good (fighting against the oppression of women), or that she’s just following what feels right / resonant. While subconsciously she’s pursuing her self-interest, and that’s laundered as either virtue or just as “it feels right / it resonates.”
Yes it feels right -- why does it feel right? Ah, because it’s in her self-interest.
Both men and women mostly make decisions subconsciously and out of self interest, and then their rational mind provides a nice-sounding rationalization for the unconscious selfish behavior.
And note that this is roughly how modern young left-wing women act: they go around telling everyone that men sucks, that young women shouldn’t focus on marriage, etc; and then they themselves sometimes jump in bed with hot guys. Which is the strategy we described earlier.
Why do these women support immigration? Well, as the uglier woman, she won’t have an easy time finding a partner, and more immigration means more potential men she could marry. Yes it means more competing women too, but white women are generally much happier to marry black guys, than white men are happy to marry black women. So immigration improves her chances to find a man.
In this modern era, the left-wing worldview has several benefits for ugly women:
- for an ugly woman, focusing heavily on her own career and finances may be a smart move, because ugly women may not be able to rely on male providers.
- leftism is partially a psy-op on beautiful women who could have a great life by marrying a good man in their 20s: those beautiful women will now also dislike men and focus on their studies, even though that’s not optimal for beautiful women (they’d be happier marrying young). So by spreading leftism, the ugly woman psy-ops the prettier female competition into getting out of the way.
- Meanwhile the left-wing ugly woman herself jumps into bed with hot guys in her 20s, while she convinces her prettier competitors to focus on studies. The ugly woman might be able to secure commitment from a hot guy this way. (This doesn’t work as well as it did in earlier centuries; unconscious preferences are slow to catch up. Height also isn’t important in the modern era anymore, yet women still like tall guys.)
- leftism often promises financial help from the state to women (and discrimination against men in favor of women), which women are more in need of if they’re not in a relationship.
So:
- aspects of left-wing ideology is the mating strategy of ugly women. Ugly women are more often progressive because the current situation doesn’t favor them, so they seek change and to “progress” away from the current society which doesn’t favor them.
- aspects of right-wing ideology is the mating strategy of pretty women. Pretty women can “win” straightforwardly, so they’re conservative -- the current situation benefits them and so they seek to conserve it.
Now obviously people are individuals, people have free will, people have genuine altruism too, not everyone is the same, there’s more going on than just this, leftism contains more elements than just this, etc.
What I described is one strand of what’s going on. It’s certainly not the whole picture.
Another strand of what’s going on is that in some locations, you get status / acceptance / love by being left-wing, plus leftism is taught in schools, which nudges some beautiful women to be left-wing. This is another real effect pushing in the opposite direction. And there are several other strands that have an impact too.
Still, is this “parts of leftism is the ugly woman’s mating strategy” strand we’ve been discussing true? How can we check it?
If it’s true, we would expect:
- pretty women are more likely to be right-wing, because the right-wing is the optimal dating strategy of prettier women. And indeed they are: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29355104/
- married women become more right-wing because they no longer need to engage in sabotage of other women via leftism; and divorced women become more left-wing because they need to sabotage the competition again. Indeed, that’s true: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/wappp_files/pdfs/the_quarterly_journal_of_economics-2002-edlund-917-61.pdf
- left-wing women to be less happy and lonelier than the right-wing women who simply marry and are happy. Indeed, that’s true: https://ifstudies.org/in-the-news/liberal-women-are-the-least-happy-and-loneliest-in-america
Also, there’s an old joke “no woman is a feminist during wartime”: during war women suddenly aren’t pushing for true equality. This further suggests that to an extent, a person’s political opinion isn’t an innate moral conviction, but rather it’s just whatever benefits them in that moment. (Yes, men are guilty of this too, but today we’re talking about women.)
So, now you also understand why left-wing women behave in other ways that sabotage the competition, poison the well and make relationships between men and women harder:
- spread the message that if a man doesn’t agree that Trump is orange Hitler, you can’t marry him (this way fewer men are able to form relationships, hence fewer men get taken off the dating market)
- spread the message that if a man doesn’t respect pronouns, he’s a jerk and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a man doesn’t realize his privilege, you can’t marry him.
- spread the message that if a man dislikes feminism, you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a man doesn’t think women are oppressed, he’s a sexist and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a man is anti illegal immigration, then he’s a racist and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a man is anti sex surgeries on minors, then he contributes to the death of trans children and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a man doesn’t believe climate change is an existential threat, you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a guy is rich, he’s a leech and an oppressor and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a guy isn’t rich, then he’s just a broke boy, you deserve better, he can’t take care of you, he’s not a real man, you shouldn’t waste your time on him
- spread the message that on one hand you shouldn’t “settle” for a man, i.e. you should date a man who’s for example higher status than you; but also that higher-status man must respect you and must think you’re his equal even though you selected him for being higher-status
- spread the message that if a guy is masculine, then that’s only one inch away from toxic masculinity; if he ever crosses that line, you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a guy is chivalrous, then he doesn’t respect women’s autonomy and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a guy likes old-school gender relations, then he’s anti-feminist and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a guy’s ever mean, then that’s emotional abuse and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a guy doesn’t like girl bosses / career women / richer women, he’s insecure or immature and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if guy wants a girlfriend who hasn’t slept around a lot, then that’s insecure and possibly toxic and you can’t marry him
- spread the message that fat women are still beautiful and healthy, and if a man disagrees, you can’t marry him
- spread the message that if a guy’s likes adult women 10 years younger than him, then he’s an absolute creep and you can’t marry him
- encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, genderqueer, nonbinary, etc sexual orientations, to make dating harder, so that fewer men get taken off the dating market
- if a man ever touches a woman without consent anywhere, that’s now flat-out evil in modern leftist circles, whereas two decades ago people would have differentiated: “touching intimate areas is absolutely abhorrent, however touching her on the shoulder or arm is often fine or at least not a huge deal, depending on the situation.” By saying “you must ask for consent before you can even touch her on her shoulder”, dating has become a bit harder.
- women shouldn’t focus on marriage; instead they should focus on education, and then on a career and buying a house (by the time she’s done all that, she’s no longer a young woman, hence spreading this message is a great way for left wing women to sabotage the competition. Also, ugly women may feel that they can’t rely on men to support them and so they need a good job and their own house.)
- divorce should be easy and guilt-free and not require a reason and should be favorable for women (so that more women initiate divorce, so that more men become available on the dating market)
- single mothers should be glorified, to further encourage women to initiate divorce
- marriage and being a mother is oppression / a prison.
- being single is fun and empowered
- stay at home moms basically sabotage feminism, whereas career women further the goals of feminism
- abortion is frequently a good choice (plus leftism wants it to be easily available): if a couple has a child they’ll likely stay together, but if the woman aborts her child then the man may become available for other women to date later.
- most men suck and are undatable, practically every woman is great, and women shouldn’t settle for mediocre men (mathematically this means most men and most women end up alone, which means that the well is successfully poisoned and lots of men remain available to date).
- polygamy is great (this frees up room for ugly women to share hot guys, plus this can destroy relationships so that more men become available on the dating market)
- sex work and making porn is completely fine (which can destabilize existing relationships; make men less likely to date; and make those women who do that less attractive to men for long-term relationships)
- women should cut their hair short, dye their hair blue, wear pants rather than dresses, and have piercings (which makes those women less attractive to men, which is why blue-haired women are usually left-wing).
- if a woman asks “should I break up with him”, most left-wing women will say “yes.”
So:
Parts of right-wing ideology are the mating strategy of pretty women.
Parts of left-wing ideology are the mating strategy of ugly women.
Part of why your society is so messed up is because it’s shaped in some part by women’s efforts to sabotage the competition and poison the well of their competitors -- which hurts everyone, men and women. If not all but a large group of women are constantly going around slashing everyone’s tires, then no one has a good time.
This is so destructive because the group of ugly women deploying well-poisoning strategies erode trust, and cause the majority of people to start acting in hostile ways towards each other. For example, some women use men to get a free meal, or divorce men with no valid reason and take half their stuff, or spread anti-man messaging, or push for anti-male discrimination. Then some men see that and decide to just start using women for sex. And suddenly even good men and good women struggle to find a partner, and may even decide to just not date at all, because now you don’t know if that other person is well-meaning or just wants to use you.
My Hidden War theory predicts that now that we have given more freedom to women, we’ll see more hostility between men and women, lower birth rates, more divorces, more abortions, fewer marriages... and indeed what the theory predicts is exactly what we see in reality. Whereas the conventional narrative predicts that empowering women will cause society to thrive... but of course your society isn’t thriving.
You can’t solely blame all this on the dark controllers, because the dark controllers can only get something implemented or embraced (such as “men suck”) if a large group of people agrees with it. Well, many women are on board with “men suck.” Whereas for example almost no one is on board with cannibalism or climate lockdowns, and indeed that’s not embraced / implemented.
To an extent you could make a similar argument that I’ve made about men. For example, you could argue that being anti casual sex and pro monogamy is an ugly man’s strategy to get a wife. And there’s a non-zero amount of truth in that (which doesn’t mean it’s the whole picture or the sole motivation, but then again, what I’ve said with regards to women also isn’t women’s whole truth / sole motivation).
Still, this whole mechanism applies more to women than men because women historically had no real way to outcompete prettier women. However, men have always had a clear mechanism to outcompete prettier men: namely, work hard and build skills and status and wealth, and compete for women that way. So men have less need to sabotage the competition.
Plus, if women choose the wrong mate, historically she faces nine months of pregnancy (during which she may die if he can’t provide or protect her), a possible death at childbirth, and then possible death of her and her family later if he can’t provide and protect. So it makes sense that women would fiercely compete for quality mates, right? Whereas for a man, having sex with a poor mate costs him about twenty calories -- he can always just walk away and she can’t stop him.
Hence, obviously female intrasexual competition is very fierce. Wouldn’t you compete very fiercely if a good mate meant happiness and safety and successful procreation, and a bad outcome meant death?
And we know that male competition for women can be fierce. Okay, well, female competition for men is at least as fierce. It’s just hidden, and most people aren’t aware of it.
If this all sounds implausible: it’s obvious that biological organisms try to maximize their chances of reproducing with a good mate, right? And sabotaging the competition would help ugly women, right? So what’s so implausible about this?
Yes I get that this clashes with the “women are wonderful” bias that people have, but that doesn’t disprove my argument.
If I argued “part of why rich guys tend to be right-wing is because they like getting tax cuts -- after all, wealth helps men reproduce” then most people agree with me, and would ignore the rich guy’s claims that he’s right-wing purely because he values job creation. Right? Then why is it implausible for me to say “part of why ugly women tend to be left-wing is because it maximizes her reproductive chances”? It’s the exact same logic, just applied to ugly women instead of rich guys.
Now yes, the Hidden War absolutely isn’t a grand theory that explains everything always about everyone. But then again, all social theories fail that test. Social theories that you believe in and use also fail that test.
So yes, people are individuals. Many ugly women are left-wing not solely because it helps their reproductive chances. But then again, rich guys also aren’t right-wing solely because they like tax cuts. It’s one real factor, but it’s not the whole story.
So, how do we actually solve this?
One: awareness helps. This behavior can only thrive in the darkness of subconsciousness. If it was widely known that “the 2026 West is a patriarchy” claims are really attempts to poison the well / slash other women’s tires / virtue-signal, then almost no woman would make these complaints, and they wouldn’t be listened to.
Two: if it was easier for the average person to be financially secure, then there would be far less need to compete so hard for financially well-off husbands.
Three: while it’s not the best solution and while I don’t like it, the traditional approach did work. If women can’t vote, teach, lead, have casual sex or choose their own husbands, then female intrasexual sabotage barely has an effect. Now sure, I’m not saying we should reimplement these things -- but now that we have removed these immoral guardrails, women are partly responsible for stopping this female intrasexual competition from severely damaging society.
As a side note, now you understand one important reason why (nearly) all successful historical societies restricted women’s freedom to some extent. One important reason is this Hidden War. It’s not men being universally oppressive and evil all across the world across all of time -- that’s a ridiculous assumption to make.
If restricting women’s freedom was just bad, if it did nothing except waste half your talent pool due to irrational sexism -- then you would expect societies that didn’t restrict women’s freedoms to outcompete societies that did. Right? Yet the most successful societies (and indeed, pretty much all societies) did restrict women’s freedom.
Apparently preventing female intrasexual competition from destabilizing society was historically so important that it was worth sacrificing half your society’s talent pool to accomplish this (i.e. not give women any freedoms or ability to rise to prominent positions).
And if we look at today’s society, well, we can kind of see that. The West would survive a halving of its labor force and talent pool, yet the West is struggling to survive the current culture wars, political wars, gender wars, rock-bottom birth rates, the slow unraveling of the societal fabric, instability, etc.
British scientist Unwin claimed that in literally 100% of cases where a historical society started allowing premarital sex or non-monogamy, that society started seriously declining three generations later. Now obviously, sex isn’t inherently bad -- but this does fit with my claim that if women are let free, some of them engage in sabotage, which harms civilization. Whereas if women don’t have rights, they’re not able to engage in sabotage, and society isn’t damaged that way.
The Hidden War theory also aligns with Calhoun’s “Universe 25” experiment. As the social environment became overcrowded, excess mice engaged in pathological social sabotage and “well-poisoning” (the “behavioral sink”). This forced the healthy mice to withdraw into total isolation (the “Beautiful Ones”, similar to good modern human men and women who have given up on dating because there are so many toxic people out there). This eventually ends the society’s ability to replicate, leading to total extinction (like how the West’s birth rate is currently far below replacement levels).
And the Hidden War helps explain how the Houthis and later Iran (much poorer than the US) both fought the US to a standstill. Namely: Houthis and Iran don’t give a lot of freedom to its women, whereas the US does. In my Hidden War theory, this explains why Houthis and Iran can stand up to the US. Whereas in the conventional worldview, Houthis and Iran’s lack of freedom for its women is a drawback, which makes it even more inexplicable how Iran can stand up to the US. (Sure, by itself this is a weak argument, but it’s one more bit of data pointing in the same direction.)
If you reject the Hidden War Theory I presented here, how are you going to explain Unwin’s observation? And how are you going to explain that globally, throughout millennia, all successful cultures decided to restrict women’s rights even though in the conventional view that’s just a pointless loss of talent? Why didn’t any society anywhere decide to not shoot themselves in the foot pointlessly and dominate the world by having twice as big a talent pool? And why did women almost never get the vote historically?
And how do you explain the “coincidence” that modern society’s decline fits perfectly with my / Unwin’s theory, yet contradicts the conventional idea that if you empower women, society will thrive?
Sure, you can pick out one or two of these points and explain those away, but to explain everything you have to do a lot of hand waving and saying “it’s a coincidence”... whereas my Hidden War theory explains it all neatly, with arguably zero real assumptions made (it’s not really an assumption that biological organisms compete for good mates).
Now, humanity doesn’t have to choose between “have a functional society that oppresses women” vs “have a dysfunctional society that gives women their freedoms.” But if you want a functional society that gives women their freedoms... then you have to look female intrasexual competition straight in the eyes.
So, I hope this was helpful.
With all my love and distance-hugs,
Your star sister,
