I know a thing or two about morals and politics, and I am right-wing/conservative and do not fear being open about this, so maybe I can provide you some insight into how things seem to work and how other people think and feel.
I am a homophobe, sexist, racist conservative who wants to "have" slaves. I explained myself in this post here:
To analyze politics and morals, I think we need to have a model of these, a fundamental basis of understanding of the simplest basics from where we can then work up in insight.
Otherwise, we would only tell each other what we feel and think, and we would not gain insight, only become aroused emotionally and confused cognitively.
Those, of course, do not really exist. They are made up, are biological and social constructs, if there ever were some. They are opinions we have, or should have (as seen by others).
Scientifically analyzing morals quickly hits a barrier: They cannot be rationally explained, people have them just like that.
Therefore, they are called pre-rational.
Pre-rational feelings and opinions are the basis of our perception.
We cannot change what we want, only do or not do it (because willpower/self-discipline is limited, usually we sooner or later end up doing what we want - openly or secretly).
Example: Food or sexual preference.
Trying to explain our moral basic opinions (which are actually feelings, instincts) we experience a phenomenon called "Moral Dumbfounding": We "know", that is feel, what "is" good and bad, good and evil, what we want other people to behave and be like, but we lack the ability to explain it directly -
First, we feel that something should be in a certain way, and only AFTERWARD we activate cognitive resources trying to find or produce reasons and arguments for our feelings of right and wrong, trying to rationalize them.
Just like food, sexual or other kinds of preferences this shows what morals are: Genetically implemented instincts, which were evolutionary selected for, that is, proved to yield superior success in natural
and sexual selection for the trait-carrying individual.
Because they are evolutionary, genetically imprinted instincts, we can and do have many of them, and because they need not be rational (and can not be, because rational thought is much too difficult, complex - JUST WANTING to live or to have sex or to eat etc. is much simpler and more reliable than more complex, higher-order cognitive processes) - they can, and often are, conflicting, that is, drive organisms (like humans) to OPPOSED, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OBJECTIVES AND DESIRES:
The paradoxical reality is that an organism can, at the same time, want and not want the same thing!
Behavioral science knows many examples for this paradox, one is some kind of bird that nests on the ground on an island where only a single type of predator exists, a red-haired, weasel-like mammal that eats its eggs.
The birds harbor two instincts, two "morals":
A ) Protect egg/sit on it ("Birds who do not tend lovingly to their eggs are bad birds, but we are good birds and therefore superior.")
B ) Attack anything that is red and near the nest. ("Wiggling red shapes are the spawn of Bird-Satan and need to be fought and exterminated mercilessly by all good Birds.")
In came human researchers, who, being more clever than the bird, wondered what would happen if they distracted the bird for a moment and secretly painted its egg in red color.
Result: For hours, until exhausted, the bird at the same time tried to both protect and attack the red egg, caught in a dilemma it could not solve (Maybe the Bird could use a politician?).
Simpler animals, it seems, lack the human higher-order cognitive processes that enable us to consciously regulate/weigh conflicting instincts/morals; but even humans have lots of trouble with this ability,
as crime, venereal diseases, the obesity epidemic etc., is evidence of.
Humans experience such paradoxical motivations routinely:
We want and do not want to eat delicious food at the same time: One subsystem, one evolved "brain-module" motivates us to eat (because tasty food is available and we should store energy in our body fat to improve future survival of possible famines); another subsystem wants to conserve energy (we are driven to do nothing or to procrastinate); another subsystem wants to conserve resources (saving food=money to have more of it in the future when there may be a greater need for it or something else it may be traded for); another subsystem wants to have us starved (it calculates that we need to successfully reproduce, so we need to be sexually attractive and keep off body fat).
Another human wants to rape and not rape a woman at the same time: One evolved brain-module drives him to rape her (reproduction chance is detected), other brain modules drive him not do it (one may drive towards a behavior that leads to get the woman's consent, because that would make having sex again later, and therefore successful reproduction, more probable; another module may warn of the social or legal consequences of rape).
Instincts/morals improve(d) individual survival and reproduction. They must be simple, basic rules/desires to work effectively. But complex reality cannot be very successfully navigated with simple rules alone, therefore a consciousness evolved, which could experience and reason to weigh and decide optimal behaviour (desiring eating and not eating as instinct both make sense and exist - to increase survival of famines, and to stay unobese/mobile and sexually attractive) by gaining insight to when to ignore certain subsets of instincts/morals (or even to invent adaptive behavior that has no previous foundations in any instinct/moral).
(Being able to act on one's rational insights, however, is another matter: We all know that figuring out the optimal behavior and having the willpower to execute it are two very different things - as obese or people with STDs are evidence of.)
Taken together, we see:
1) Morals are genetically imprinted instincts.
2) They were evolutionary selected for, that is, achieved a high degree of success in natural and sexual selection in the past, this being the reason humans have them in the first place.
3) They are arbitrary, they need not to make sense, they can be paradoxical, we can have opposing instincts/morals in the same brain/person even - let alone in the same society/different individuals.
4) They are, because directly felt, usually experienced as an "absolute truth" of the person who harbors them (and who lacks knowledge of evolutionary psychology, for example)
5) They are not evenly distributed in humans; some humans may have more or less of them, the same kind like others, or completely opposed instincts/morals.
6) Humans 1st experience them, only then afterward are they coming up with reasons + arguments cognitively why this specific set of morals is true/best/"good".
And now we arrive at politics, which is the art and science of organizing public life in the reality of many different, often opposing, morals and interests people hold.
All people desire two things, need two things objectively:
Success in natural and sexual selection. That is, resources and mates.
And because resources and mates, especially high-quality mates, are scarce, demand being always higher than supply, there is conflict, and this conflict and its management is called politics.
In all primates, and of course humans, all this is primarily governed by Social Status [SS]( = hierarchy position, rank, "pecking order").
SS is what humans are effectively after:
A higher SS brings access to more resources and mates; conversely, too, more resources and (more or better) mates leads to higher SS.
So, in humans, SS is the true name of the social game, the social war (for resources and mates, for SS).
Politics is the battleground of individuals and groups that decides about who has higher or lower SS.
In politics, an ubiquitous phenomenon is what we may call left and right.
The former typically want "change", or even revolution, the latter less so, or not at all.
There is a strong correlation of being left-wing and being young, and of being older and being right-wing/conservative - in all known human societies.
Consider a young man
(I exclude women mostly, because they tend to be less politically interested and active than men, and tend to just follow the examples of those men or groups who are in power.
Revolutionaries are almost exclusively male. It seems most women care only to get successful, that is, powerful and resourceful, high-SS men, and care much less over any details of the political system, at least when they have access to such men or see a chance for themselves. Such women also are largely unpolitical and conservative, at least in terms of adherence to the political system that supports their access to successful men - therefore we find a tendency for such women to be apolitical, while women who lack access to successful men - mostly older and uglier women - being more "revolutionary" minded, more politically active, seeking "change", that is, a means to increase their own SS by access to successful men.).
As a young man he wants two things: Resources and sex. That is, money and (attractive, young) women (high SS). This he must want in some form or another, because that is what is needed to succeed evolutionary; those who want other things are removed from evolution for lack of surviving, trait-carrying offspring.
Our young man sees that the positions of power, the money, and the SS, and therefore many women, all the things he wants - are already taken!
Mostly, a few older men hold all those good things. He now has two options:
Try to climb up in SS by hard work, being clever etc. This takes time, and he must prove to be better than many others who compete for the same. Some men try, some men succeed at this.
Or, he could just try to take what he wants - resources, women, power - SS - by force. By revolting, through revolution, he could "abolish the old system". If he is strong and/or finds allies, he may make it.
But the old guys in power were once young, too, and know exactly how such young men feel and think. They will take precautions to keep their SS - in tribal societies, or in industrial ones.
The angry low-SS young men are perhaps send to war. This was done in the past, and a lot of them died, removing them as political trouble sources, perhaps even furthering the interests, wealth and power of the older men in power by conquering new land, peoples, or markets.
In modern societies war is less of an option, so those young men must be neutralized by other means.
The angry, testosterone-fueled young men still want money+women+power, SS. This is what they truly want. They cannot say so openly, for they feel this would threaten their political legitimacy. So they find excuses and pretexts, perhaps even believing them themselves.
Nevertheless those are always crafted in such a way that the "unjust system" will be abolished, and a new political system be erected that will be so that they, the young men, will enjoy a higher SS.
The older, powerful, high SS men, the rulers of society, have set up incentives for those young men to spend and waste their energies in ultimately pointless and futile actions-
until they are older - because with age, testosterone levels, and with them the desire for aggression and dominance and sexual conquest, will diminish. There are no old revolutionaries.
It is interesting that revolutions are always a mere replacement of one upper class with another. The new upper class is composed of members of the old upper class, and the old middle class.
Never in human history any revolution was successful with moving lower or working class to upper class.
Upper and middle class only use lower and working class as tools- soldiers, protesters etc., by exploiting their hopes of achieving a higher SS, or a higher share in economic distribution.
What are social classes, anyway?
Ultimately, they are representations of cognitive class. There are a few exceptions here and there, but the general rule holds.
Cognitive class is a product of genetic class, that is, genetic quality.
Beauty, health, intelligence, willpower, ambition, discipline and all other personality traits are largely genetic, that is, largely heritable.
The higher the social class, the higher health and intelligence and conscientiousness, together the strongest predictors of life success.
What about those who say that superior intellect and stronger willpower and better health are the results of environment, that is, the rich have it better, therefore they develop better?
This is provably wrong, and many have proven it. Pinker has done it in "The Blank Slate", Clark has done it in "The Son Also Rises", for example.
Some say members of the upper class were once working or middle class, and this would prove that the upper class' genes and cognitive ability is not superior and that also individuals from lower classes can raise, as this has happened in the past. This is only partially true:
In the past, cognitive ability and willpower were no strong predictors for high SS. If you were a serf, being physically strong and having robust health was more important. Being smart provided limited advantages in natural and sexual selection, because there were so few available positions in nobility at all. But being able to work hard physically and to survive infections and famines was critical.
Industrial revolution changed that: Suddenly being smart and disciplined afforded huge advantages. It is therefore that in the transition from pre- into industrial societies a selection happened:
Those who were smarter rose in class, and most that were smart of the lower classes rose. But this was a one-time selection: This transition happened only once.
Afterwards, social mobility was much lower again.
Another factor proving the importance of genetic quality as basis for cognitive and therefore social class is that only some of the offspring of upper class people stay upper class;
a lot of their children fall down into lower classes, again. Genetic recombination and mutation is a process influenced by randomness: Some of the children of parents who are both cognitively and
mentally gifted and of good health are not like their parents: They suffer from lower IQs, become drug addicts, suffer from lower conscientiousness or bad health.
If the environmental theory of social class were true, practically all children growing up in upper class households should be smart and disciplined and successful, as they all enjoyed the superior environment. Clearly this is not the case.
But as is pointed out in Clark's book, especially after the transitional selection phase during industrialization, the vast majority of men that rise to significance have had ancestors that also have risen to significance.
Genetically gifted parents have both talented and untalented offspring (due to mutations and recombination), while non-gifted parents almost completely have non-gifted offspring only.
What drives human political behavior? Natural and sexual selection, access to resources and quality mates. Those are scarce, demand is greater than supply. Therefore, most people must have less resources and only get lower quality mates, some even no mates at all.
SS is key to both, but not an economic good - it cannot be equally distributed by economic growth, because it is a zero-sum game: One can only have the status others lose.
Even if some fairy would wave a magical wand to make all people perfectly equal in cognitive ability, willpower, beauty, health and wealth, human nature would immediately make people compete for a higher SS, trying to prove or at least try to demonstrate that they are better than others. Sexual selection dictates this, because women must have a means to find out which male has superior genes, and they can only learn about this reliably by having the men compete with each other for SS (resources and women, power).
Therefore, "equality" is impossible to achieve, and an utopian, delusional goal of some of the left wing.
But the powerful drive to increase one SS remains. It manifests himself in what Warren Buffett called the thing that truly makes the world go round: Not greed, but envy.
Humans are not very greedy. But because SS is so extremely important for their health and success in evolutionary selection (resources/sex) envy is perhaps the strongest human emotional motivator.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, exactly for that reason, envy is largely a taboo: Being envious would be evidence that one is discontent with one's SS, demonstrating that one is weaker/dumber etc. than one's competition. Not surprisingly, inducing envy is one of the strongest means to manipulate people:
To make people into marionettes, manipulate their desires and actions, it is merely necessary to show them that other people have better things and can do more than they themselves can.
This is fundamentally what advertising is about.
Just being seen having more or better things than one's peers is more than enough to strongly arouse humans. For example, if one neighbor is seen with a luxury car, soon enough some sort of competition for ever-more-expensive cars can be induced, with one neighbor trying to get to the same or even a slightly better level of car - soon the whole neighborhood is in debt and driving cars they cannot really afford.
This also works on the top end of society. Owning a luxury yacht is rewarding. The joy from it is however immediately lost on the owner as soon as a peer owns a bigger one.
"Yacht envy" is the driver of a whole industry of luxury yachts, that serve no other purpose than the social war for SS among some members of the upper class, with yachts having prices in the hundreds of
millions of dollars.
This is actually a useful thing - while it induces impotent envy in sub-upper class people, it redistributes large sums of money from some rich people into the pockets of workers and middle class - who build and design and operate those yachts. It's not exactly a revolutionary expropriation of the upper class, but it is close enough.
Conservatives are people who are content with the status quo. Their motto is: "Gustav Mahler — 'Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire." Or “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”― G.K. Chesterton. They are content with their SS, therefore they have or perceive to have a rather high SS.
They know that the progress leftist progressives desire to progress to is nothing else than the desire to lower the SS of those who hold higher SS to increase the SS of those who have lower SS.
Conservatives and right-wingers share a lot of interests and feelings, because they both want to keep safe what they already have.
Right-wing people feel a strong desire for in-group favoritism - be it race, social class, or nationality. They experience a strong "us vs. them" in perceiving society.
They are typically much more competitive, militaristic even, and therefore favor strict hierarchies.
They seem to be more driven by fears, which they try to manage by being strong and organized, protective of their own possessions, SS and people.
The more radical right-wing they are, the more they accept violence and aggression to keep what they see as their own, and protect it, even if that means they need to use military action to remove what they see as external threats to themselves.
This is quite the exact opposite of those who feel left-wing desires - that is, have a strong out-group favoritism. They desire some form of universal equality of all humans, and they tend to ignore practicability, economic and military interests of others to achieve their ideal. They are driven by a lack of fears of others. They are trusting and noncompetitive, "Hippy"-like, dreaming more or less of a world of eternal peace free of conflict. They are socialists - specifically international socialists, because they see no point in equality if it is not absolutely universal. The more radical left-wing they are, the more they accept violence for bringing about perfect equality, even if that means revolution and murdering and expropriation of the rich.
It is noteworthy that of all political ideologies, only left-wing/socialism is inherently unstable and inefficient:
1. People compete for SS; even if perfect economic equality could be achieved, the drive for higher SS would still mean that leftist desire a kind of "eternal revolution", if need be by making up problems if
they cannot find real ones. They try to out-compete each other in being more "moral", more revolutionary, more "truly socialist", which brings useless social instability. For example, the left-wing Red Khmer killed thousands of people just for wearing glasses, as they argued such people would be intellectuals and therefore trying to be better than others and therefore betray the goal of perfect equality.
People, like all organisms, cannot be truly altruistic. ("A cow that gives her milk freely to anyone who asks will kill her calf and then herself.")
The leftist creed "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." must fail.
There is a nice short story explaining this:
Nazis are something completely different - and new. They are, at the same time, socialists and nationalists, "national socialists" (vs. "international socialists") as their name clearly announces, combining aspects of both right- and left-wing ideology.
This is a central element how Hitler won the elections that brought him to power: By combining the elective potential from both left- and right-wing parties, and most of the people who stand in-between.
He promised "everything to everybody": The right should keep their national pride, militarism and SS, patriotism, hierarchy and receive a "strong leader"; the left should get their expropriation of the "rich" (which were impersonated as just being Jews), and guaranteed work/abolishment of unemployment. So, every ideology could kind of "have their cake and eat it, too."
While this wins elections by promising a large majority of people what they desire, it cannot work in reality, just like socialism cannot work. At least not by having the resources of only one nation.
Therefore, aggressive expansion and exploitation is necessary, basically with the goal of enslaving other people who are not members of the "national socialists", the in-group - so the Nazis made up quickly some kind of ideology from scratch that "proved" that those who are not "Aryans" are subhumans, who can be readily enslaved to provide the resources for the "socialism" for the "nationals", that is, "Aryans", the in-group of national socialism, or Nazism. This is all a huge ball of nonsense, nothing else but a weird dictatorship.
But it had and has great political power, and therefore is a political threat, because it still has the potential to combine forces of the left and the right-wing, forming a potentially unbeatable alliance in elections or politics generally.
A second aspect why it is so powerful and dangerous is the concept of "Aryan" (or anything else that can fit the same purpose): By attributing a vastly higher SS to people just because they are members of a nation or "race" (or something else that sets them apart as superior) Nazism produces classes of superior and inferior people on the spot out of nothing: And this is dangerous because it can be exploited for gaining political power in almost any political system, because it can create strong loyalty to a cause (If called Nazism or something else) from those who are supposed to have a higher SS in the new political system: Not surprisingly many people like the message that they are superior over others, who should then be their slaves to make them rich and powerful, high SS, very much, and are very ready to support such a political system with sudden and strong loyalty. Potentially, a Nazism-like political phenomenon can come into existence dangerously quickly and powerfully - devaluing others to appreciate ourselves in SS is welcomed by a large part of the population quite about everywhere.
That being said, a lot of people these days have made "Nazi" or "Fascist" into a meaningless word without meaning other than "somebody I do not like".
The Russian Revolution and most religions worked by the same principle:
Promising people with low SS a higher, potentially supreme SS. The Soviets promised low-SS people to remove the old caste of high SS, therefore rising the SS of everybody else.
Most people got to improve their SS through the revolution, so most people supported or at least passively tolerated it.
Christian religion promises superior SS in the afterlife for enduring low SS in the earthly existence. It basically promises people that by being docile slaves for a limited time (their life) they can
be high-SS in "eternity".
Regarding Trump - I think I feel I share the opinion of many of those who voted for him: I do not so much like the man, as I dislike the alternative.
Compared to Clinton or Sanders - I'd rather voted for a toaster than those.
Anyway, in terms of politics I think the saying holds true that the US has two right-wing parties that just have different names. In the end, nothing important will change anyway,
and results will largely be the same, irrespective of a D or R is president, because there is not really much "wiggle room" for fundamentally different politics, because global and economic and power-structure environment dictates the optimal course of action rather than ideology - nether Trump nor Clinton can do much about the Great Recession or the rise of China or the demography and related effects on economic growth, social security and all the other issues.
The climate change discussion is an intra-upper-class revolution, nothing about the climate. We cannot predict climate, and it is always changing anyway.
But the fossil fuel industry is economically sub-optimal - gas, coal and oil producers grow too rich and powerful, only Exxon alone is an incredible wealth creator - for too few people.
"Fighting climate change" essentially means fighting fossil fuels, that is, those who profit from it. Which are few, massively rich people. Other massively rich people envy them for this privilege,
and they want to take it from them, because if those profits are redistributed to the people, they will end up not by the fossil energy czars but the other billionaires like Jeff Bezos or in the coffers of Apple.
This is how it works:
Ending fossil fuels requires another energy source. This should be mostly "green" energy, solar, wind etc.
This means two things will happen:
1. Unemployment will fall because massively more people need to be employed to produce a quantity of energy from Green Energy than from just burning fossil fuel.
2. Energy cost will rise, effectively being paid by everybody, therefore paying for those many new jobs in Green Energy.
The net effect is just economic redistribution - the income is spread out more evenly. And this will make most top billionaires richer, minus the fossil czars who lose their huge profits, because more people
have jobs and income, therefore more people will consume mass products and redirect those profit streams from Exxon and friends to the likes of Apple or Amazon, because 1000 fossil-fuel billionaires will not buy another 10 million Iphones, but 10 million people more having jobs and good income will.
The anti-fossil-fuel fraction of the upper class should win this war, because billionaires and the like fight by influencing public opinion. By creating the idea of a great threat of climate collapse and supporting many leftist environmental groups with ideas and money the public is made to desire the idea to "fight climate change" so "we are not going to die due to climate change". That their electricity bills will rise to the level of Germany (30+ cents per KWh, world's highest, because that "Green Energy anti-climate-change program, aka economic redistribution of profits, is already partly in effect here), that means at least paying a five-times higher electricity energy bill compared to what the average US customer pays now (and on top of that paying higher prices for quite about any product and service, because electricity costs are part of about any product and service) is not exactly forced into the public attention, though.
>Being white is still life easy-mode on average though.
Our true rulers, the upper class, works by divide and conquer.
Divisions are produced and strengthened, between races, rich and poor, old and young, women and men, and others.
Paradoxically, by fueling these conflicts, social stability is increased. Few divisions could bring about a unification of the lower and middle classes against the upper class, threatening stability.
The more lower and middle class fractions and subfractions fight among each other the more they neutralize each other, producing much noise and no gain, wasting their energies.
How current economic ruling of the upper class works, why aspects of left-wing ideology is supported by the upper class, and why the current "refugee" mass immigration in Europe happens I explain here:
>There's thousands of shooting every year
All people want to be high SS and in control.
Right wing people derive a sense of personal power and control from owning guns, which they feel increases their SS somewhat.
Left wing people perceive a threat in any form of physical or martial competitiveness and power for themselves, for their SS - they desire others to be as weak as possible, therefore wanting to ban guns, and they feel that their own safety and SS would be somewhat higher if that of the gun owners would be lowered, therefore they desire that those loose personal power/SS by making them losing their guns.
In terms of people killed by guns in the US: The number is rather stable, around 30.000 per years.
Sound dramatic, but is not: Around 20.000 of those deaths are suicides, because having a gun is a reliable and efficient way to suicide (perhaps better than not having this option).
This leaves 10.000 cases of gun fatalities. The vast majority of those is intra-black and intra-hispanic ghetto/gang violence, therefore not being much of an issue for middle and upper class people in the US.
This leaves only a few "real" gun-related violent deaths among middle and upper class Americans, a rate comparable with the peaceful gun-owning nation of Switzerland.
This are the facts, as undistorted and unbiased as I can tell them. Interested parties - political ideologues, hysteria-benefiting mass media - profit from presenting a warped picture of reality, therefore do the very same.
Feminism works on different levels.
There is the fact that most feminists tend to be old and ugly females. They lack male attention and, especially male resources. That makes them envious and bitter.
They cannot reprogram male sexual instincts, and they cannot attack their core competitors, that is young, attractive females, because those are sacrosanct.
Therefore, feminism works primarily by trying to limit the male access to sexual release, for example by campaigning to ban prostitution, ban pornography, ban sexual contact with young women.
Knowing that men still need to have sexual release, they know that their own sexual SS, their desirability to men, and therefore their social power and access to resources, will increase through these bans, which they try to enforce on "moral" grounds.
It works with sex just with food: The hungrier you get, the more accepting you become of bland, unattractive food. The same works with men and sex.
Another level on feminism is the "labour force participation rate" - sounds weird, but is a central+common element of economic analysis.
Basically, young women are "genetic superstars" - as long as they are young and attractive, the great demand they arouse in men makes them socially powerful and having a very high SS.
Their life is perfect, they receive gifts and services basically for free. Through the power of their sex, they can command men and resources.
This almost suddenly ends when they hit a certain age, very roughly around 30. Suddenly they are not in demand, suddenly they lack income. Because life was so easy for them they did not much in terms of education and work. To somehow keep up their SS, they decide they must have kids - then they are "mothers", not lowly unemployed or low-income, unskilled workers. Then they can keep on living on the bill of men - directly, through husbands or ex-partner child support payments or social welfare - in every situation they do not or not much working in a job, and they have lower income, and therefore less to spend in the economy. More women in work would also compete with men for jobs, driving down wages and increasing work output for wages paid - good for the upper class' profits.
Therefore, feminism is supported by the upper class, because just telling women they need to work will not achieve this objective. Who would work if she does not really need to and get money anyway?
Feminism, upper-class-propaganda style, however, presents relentlessly other "strong, successful" women as role models who work and are "successful", inducing SS-envy in women. This drives a desire in women to work, too, and become successful in a career, therefore increasing "labour force participation rate" and with that economic output/growth - from the women who work instead of not working, and from the men who now must work even more and harder, to be attractive to women ("Hypergamy") and because of the added pressure on wages due to increased supply of workers.
Because women are still somewhat reluctant, recently even an "anti-male" propaganda is in place, by showing more and more strong characters of women in movies, advertising etc. that beat, dominate, win over men. I suspect this is to increase female self-confidence in their ability to compete with men at work, and to induce a defiance in men, who perceive this, too, and should react with another extra effort to be even more manly, hard-working and successful to prove their superiority over women, which is a central component of male identity.
(I cannot believe how much I wrote again already. Well, maybe somebody will find it interesting. It helped me to sort my thoughts better, and practice the bit of English proficiency I have, because in my life I have not much opportunity to do so, as I only hear and read English much, not speak or write it - after some years this lack of exercise degrades one's skill by non-use - as one of the Ancient Greek said "We are what we repeatedly do.")