Oh boy.

We geologists call this kind of speculative generalization “arm waving.” I guess that I’ll join in ….

Whiskey and his posse make a couple of provocative points, but, to extrapolate them to some kind of zeitgeist is a bit much. I understand Nahncee’s umbrage, because they make it sound like women are making some kind of lousy choice out of, what?, bad character?

I think it more likely that the things Whiskey and Nahncee describe are symptoms of a larger pathology.
Another piece of the puzzle is the downright crappy treatment given first to Hillary and then to Sarah. The criticisms haven’t been about policy, or, even character. They seem to have been more of the nature of deviation from what is deemed the *right* feminine appearance or behaviour. Critics right and left have fixated on Hillary’s pantsuits, “ballbuster” persona or excessive/deficient emotional expression. Sarah is either *too* pretty, perky, Stepford wife or calculating and sinister. These women are hardly ever judged on their merits as prospective leaders.
I think these are all aspects of the same social trends.

The pop culture has reduced women to two-dimensional images whose existence as sentient beings is only secondary to their status as sexual objects. Ironically, this doesn’t seem to be fruition of the senascent patriarchy, but a new wave of sexism emerging under the banner of progressivism. This is where Whiskey et al. would cheer. The imperative is no longer the maintenance of chastity and the protection of the legitimate bloodline, but the unrestrained marketing of products and memes. Whiskey and friends, however, are also complicit. By attaching blame to women for not adhering to *their* ideal of femininity they only add to the pop culture’s demands. The predatory manboy simply cannot deal with a mature woman.
That “fat chick” would be delighted to be with the “nice guy” if he would only turn aside from airbrushed “perfection” and open his eyes to beauty right in front of him.