Any movement that doesn't value meritocracy is going to be more female orientated. Just because men, when unobstructed by forces they can't even fight back against, like to find purpose pushing the bar and leaving a legacy.

The funny thing is that despite them being anti masculine, 70% of those same leftist women will immediately be at the beck and call of a string guy that orders them around....if he wanted to, a lot of the lefty women take themselves out of that dating pool with 'lifestyle choices'...

Women are the choice cut in this ensemble. Why is that?

They are easy to control by flock instinct while being the lever of who reproduces and who doesn't. More often than not their attention is the metric of success within a given society.

If you want to treat society like your personal petry dish, where you start is with women.

They love feminine penis though.

It isn't just the left who treat lonely and suicidal men with scorn, mockery and contempt. There was a recent Lotuseaters podcast segment where lonely men without girlfriends were treated like that and I would struggle to label the Lotuseaters to be left wing. The uncomfortable truth is that we tend to see anti-social (as in lonely and partnerless) men, and to a degree women too, in a negative manner because we are a pro-social species and reward pro-social behaviour with respect, value and reward. Regardless of political stance.

Society also expects men to lead despite stating that they're for gender equality. They support gender equality until the missiles start being fired, the tanks roll over the border or the bill comes at the end of a date.

There is also the recent pushback against trans women in women's spaces. Only yesterday after the recent rally in the UK led by Kellie-Jay Keen, there were prominent individuals regarding this issue retweeting posts condemning "men's rights activists", incorrectly lumping in the likes of Honey Badger Radio with Antifa, and actively advocating for only women's sports and spaces to be protected by shifting the issue from women to men. They ferociously oppose the eradication of women's identity but stay silent when people say the quiet bit loud and advocate for the eradication of men's identity.

It’s really very funny. Behind this entire leftward Western-American movement to empower the poor, women, minorities, homosexuals, and other downtrodden folk, in effect, pushing the whole thing forward, there lies hidden and obscured this primal issue of male pride among a conquered people. Feminists who have inherited the Lockean denial of biological nature that underpins the original theory of liberal democracy are, in effect, perpetuating the victory of this medieval Anglo-Saxon patriarchal pride that refuses to see in themselves a defeated people.

America has inherited this stubborn refusal to connect the origins of democratic revolution to this medieval emasculation. The Anglo-Saxon men have so often preferred to see themselves as Protestants, “individuals,” liberals; anything but the descendants of a defeated and conquered nation. In short, they refuse to admit their weakness. Just like a man.

Anglo-Saxon femocracy took its first step with the castration of the Anglo-Saxon military-aristocracy by the Normans. The failure of the native Anglo-Saxon patriarchy, along with the influence of Christianity, is sociobiological ground upon which Anglo-American feminists stand. The weakness of these men is the political foundation of these women’s strength. It the slain beast upon which these women stand victoriously, as if they had hunted down and slain it themselves. The feminists are scavengers and gatherers.

Herein lays the general truth of female equality: females can aspire to be the equivalent of emasculated men. The feminine moral and legal norms and values of the West are the condition of Western feminism. Only within such norms is it conceivable that there be a normative expectation that women should rise to positions of political power. Sexual equalizing means that men must be emasculated in some way before women can be masculinized. This is the foundation of its common gender ground and its justice.

Feminists are good rebels, obedient to the spirit of 1776 that the feministic founders fathered for them. The failure of Anglo-Saxon political patriarchy is the foundation of political equality that leads not only to the rights of women, homosexuals, and minorities, but also to animals rights, right down to the time when we progress to the equality of mice and men.

The English “class” system originated as a de facto ethnic-kinship classification system and individual feminism continues this same rebellion against a hereditary division of labor, a universalization of the Anglo-Saxon perception of false classification. The Anglo-Saxon male pride that refused to admit the feminine nature of their democracy provided the political ground for individuals of the female sex to reject their own feminine nature. Anglo-Saxon femocrats and individual feminists have converged in the attempt to reject, weaken, or reinterpret the evolutionary origins of sociobiological difference.

Anglo-Saxons are heirs of forefathers who failed in their duty to defend the borders of their gene pool and their native culture. From their forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons inherited the failure to defend the collective integrity of their nation. From partial adaptation to this failure stemmed an Anglo-Saxon tradition of liberal openness that is now the pride of America.

From the American inheritance of the failure of Anglo-Saxon political patriarchy evolved the further deconstruction of familial patriarchy. Liberation of women fulfills Anglo-Saxon loss of sociobiological self-control, which ultimately means loss of control over gene propagation; loss of control over biological evolution itself. But this is comprehensible only to those who do not close their minds to the application of biological evolution to human societies.

— Mitchell Heisman, 2010

Any party where women have influence hates men, because women hate men.

It's that simple.