They're not. "Crazy women" are not "liberals," and liberals are not "crazy women." That framing is a partisan stereotype, not a description of reality.
Political views and mental stability (or gender) do not map onto each other that cleanly. People of every political stripe—left, right, center—can be unstable, extreme, performative, or simply disagreeable. Online culture amplifies the loudest, most theatrical examples on both sides: progressive activists who treat disagreement as violence, or reactionary figures who treat every cultural change as civilizational collapse. Cherry-picking the most unhinged examples from one side and treating them as representative is how tribal memes work, not how populations work.
Empirically:
Mental-health prevalence, personality traits linked to emotional volatility, and rates of certain disorders do not line up neatly with self-identified liberalism or conservatism once you control for age, sex, education, and urban/rural differences. Some studies show modest average differences in traits like openness or neuroticism across the spectrum, but the overlap is huge and the extremes exist everywhere.
Women on average score higher than men on measures of neuroticism and anxiety in large personality datasets; that is a sex difference, not a political one. Applying it selectively to one ideology is motivated reasoning.
Media and social platforms reward outrage. Progressive spaces have their share of public meltdowns over language, pronouns, or microaggressions; conservative spaces have theirs over election results, "woke" institutions, or cultural decline. Both get clipped and circulated by the opposing side.
Calling an entire demographic "crazy" because some of its members annoy you is the same lazy pattern that produces "all conservatives are fascists" or "all religious people are bigots." It feels satisfying in the moment and explains nothing. If someone is unstable or hostile, judge the behavior. The political label is secondary.
Political views and mental stability (or gender) do not map onto each other that cleanly. People of every political stripe—left, right, center—can be unstable, extreme, performative, or simply disagreeable. Online culture amplifies the loudest, most theatrical examples on both sides: progressive activists who treat disagreement as violence, or reactionary figures who treat every cultural change as civilizational collapse. Cherry-picking the most unhinged examples from one side and treating them as representative is how tribal memes work, not how populations work.
Empirically:
Mental-health prevalence, personality traits linked to emotional volatility, and rates of certain disorders do not line up neatly with self-identified liberalism or conservatism once you control for age, sex, education, and urban/rural differences. Some studies show modest average differences in traits like openness or neuroticism across the spectrum, but the overlap is huge and the extremes exist everywhere.
Women on average score higher than men on measures of neuroticism and anxiety in large personality datasets; that is a sex difference, not a political one. Applying it selectively to one ideology is motivated reasoning.
Media and social platforms reward outrage. Progressive spaces have their share of public meltdowns over language, pronouns, or microaggressions; conservative spaces have theirs over election results, "woke" institutions, or cultural decline. Both get clipped and circulated by the opposing side.
Calling an entire demographic "crazy" because some of its members annoy you is the same lazy pattern that produces "all conservatives are fascists" or "all religious people are bigots." It feels satisfying in the moment and explains nothing. If someone is unstable or hostile, judge the behavior. The political label is secondary.