My main objection, aside from “what point is the author making with all these half-baked illustrations?”, is that the title annoyingly implies that being politically ambiguous is attractive to women right now, when the reality seems to be very much the opposite: being a “moderate” is a red flag.
I think it's just part of their long running project to insist that no, no, having awful toxic views aren't the reasons nobody wants to be around you even though they clearly state that, it's everyone else that is wrong... They're really stretching.
I think the author has a thing he writes about, and he got a chance to write for the Times and he chose a splashy angle. And then the editors gave it a splashy title.
Anyway, paging @benvyle.bsky.social in case he wants something to fume about.
I don't know who the target audience is but ambiguous people are not trustworthy. It was ambiguous voters that helped get us into our current mess.
And the casual intimation that having not only having watched "Paris Is Burning" but *admiring* could somehow be seen as politically "neutral" it today's climate. Much like the rest of the piece, it's an aggressively stupid take.
I looked up the three "himbos" he lists as having endorsed Zohran, and ... they don't look like "himbos" at all.