Editor’s note: AVFM is a nonpartisan website, meaning we take no official political position, left nor right, nor do we advocate for political candidates or parties. We do occasionally print articles that offer commentary on political races from different perspectives. In these cases, the views are those of the author only and not necessarily AVFM.

In a previous article, I hypothesized why 6 of 7 young Democratic women under 30 vote for sugar daddy Bernie Sanders instead of feminist Hillary Clinton: I reasoned that these women realized that electing Sanders would give them more influence over his Presidency than they would enjoy under Clinton because they could both shame and sexually manipulate Sanders in ways that Clinton would be immune to.

One commenter, Gyor, took strong exception to my hypothesis, claiming among other things that I had “an extreme ignorance about those of us on the left and the diversity of perpectives [sic] and what goes on the left.”

Of course, I had heard a lot of progressive explanations about how and why these women were rebelling in such drastic numbers against a female feminist candidate – I even noted a few of the more credible ones even as I dismissed them as rationalizations at best, and outright manipulations at worst. Still, Gyor’s white knight braying got me curious that perhaps I had missed something – perhaps these children of flower had a more serious and coherent explanation than my estimation that those women had intuitively assessed their long-term potential influence under both candidates and had voted accordingly.

So, let’s check a few of these progressive apologists to see if their explanations hold water, or perhaps, bile.

Samantha Bee. In promos for her new late night comedy TV series creatively named Full Frontal on TBS starting Monday, February 8th, the former Daily Show stalwart claimed that the voter shortfall was because Hillary had placed unwarranted faith in the powers of a witch to whom Hillary had promised her daughter Chelsea, in some sort of infernal deal for political power.

Now, while some might be tempted to see Bee’s theory as some sort of satire, feminists don’t typically joke about the human trafficking of young women, and the feminist reaction to the recent Roosh imbroglio shows clearly that feminists have no sense of satire at all.

Madeline Albright, former US Secretary of State, also invoked a supernatural explanation for those younger women’s recalcitrant voting habits, noting that “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” Some may see this as a metaphorical appeal to the power of the female collective own group preference and/or shaming language directed at women, but this seems to me more like some diabolical witchery had afflicted these poor women, deflecting them from the divinely ordained Clinton vaginal monologue camp into the more penile side of the Iowa Cock-us.

Taking the magic penis theory one step further was feminist micro-icon Gloria Steinem, who remarked on Bill Maher’s show that instead of voting their long-term interests as I had so generously hypothesized, young women are boy crazy and the 84% percent who support Sanders think such votes would ingratiate themselves to hipster dick. According to TNR,

Maher then joked that he wouldn’t be allowed to say such a thing, lest Steinem slap him, because chalking young women’s politics up to their desire to meet boys actually is a profoundly sexist thing to do.

Now, the depletion of educated, attractive men, a declared wrought by feminism, may well have turned these young women into desperate non-housewives hungry for hookups at any cost and if indeed this is driving their voting preferences, the fault lies clearly with feminism for creating such an open latrine in the middle of their own bivouac. Steinem tried to backtrack on her statement, but that just seems to have made matters worse.

Even more bizarre and unflattering are the arguments that young feminists cleave to Bernie because Hillary cleaves to Bill Clinton: they want Hillary to be a more independent woman, and so, the voters show this by depending on a man themselves.

These progressive arguments are both bizarre and unsavory. The insults to these young women voters both reek of the sort of slut-shaming these young feminists detest, and the implicit man-hate that is emblematic of feminism despite feminists’ half-hearted denials of same. These individualistic, rebellious women voters cannot help but be further alienated from feminism because of them.

Will this alienation be from all feminism, or just the collectivist, misandrous strains of feminism that control the feminist narrative? I believe young women, like most people, will cling to the ideal of an individualistic gender equality but they will also wake up to the realization that feminism in practice is the enemy of this ideal. These post-feminists are already exploring the joys of objectification and cat-calling, for example.

Kicking the dead-weight feminism out of socialism might well turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to socialism – or even, the only noteworthy thing it ever accomplishes, other than proving to everyone that men make the best feminists of all.