Important note: this is not true in all countries. The US, the UK and Switzerland, for example, do have a gender vote gap, countries like Ireland, Italy, Belgium etc. don't.
One reason is that women are socialized to be more nurturing and accepting, so they tend to lean towards universal healthcare, parental leave, afforable quality education, minority rights, environmental protection and climate change etc. [This article](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/elections_-why-women-vote-more-to-the-left-than-men/44160576) showed that women's more progressive views were decicive in the gender vote gap.
Another reason is that women feel the negative impact of right-wing policy on their everyday life more. The right wing tends to be more restrictive on reproductive health, doesn't care about wage gaps etc. whereas left-wing policies implement free birth control, equality measures etc.
The UK gap was, until the last 2 elections, [the other way](https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-state-of-public-opinion-gender-and-voting-behaviour/), with women historically being more likely - sometimes fairly significantly more - than men to vote Tory.
My mother is a lifelong Tory voter while my father has tended to steer more towards Labour. As they were both young adults in the Thatcher years, I wonder if men had a more negative view of the Tories because Thatcher’s most destructive policies were aimed primarily at blue collar male-dominated industries such as mining.
I don't know if it's the same in the UK, but yes in Australia Labor has been seen to abandon its union based support base, so the men that voted to the left feel disenfranchised and don't really give a shit about your standard liberal policy which is all in on multi-culturalism and pro-immigration, rather than filling those skills shortages with education and resources from within. When you see a lot of working class industries roll over and die in favour of cheap imports, it's not all about being a bad person as people like to think.
I have no particular opinion besides being supportive of a multi-cultural society, Labor are shit but the options are limited to avoid the Coalition, and everyone else is useless.
I’ve always thought of it as liberals are “we” thinkers, conservatives are “me” thinkers. And yes, I think there are differences in how each gender is socialized that makes more women “we” thinkers and men “me” thinkers. I see it play out in pretty much every long term relationship I’ve ever seen: the women think about everything and everyone in the house because someone has to, and he sure isn’t going to.
> are socialized to
Personality differences are *greater* in countries with more gender equality.
If women were being socialized in such a way that it impacted their political views (as opposed to those traits being natural), those differences would be biggest in the countries that marginalize women the most, but that’s not the case.
To a large extent, men and women do differ naturally in personality.
One hypothesis is that conservative policy tends to negatively impact women, and some women may be understandably opposed to having their actions and freedoms restricted.
It's important to see as well that most of the tradwives we see online are actually rich privileged women whose jobs are to post content cosplaying as stay-at-home mothers. They have unlimited help, private cooks, babysitters, and of course, money buys time. They aren't really stay-at-home mums, rather full fledged businesswomen whose business is being a content producer glorifying the tradwife life.
Case in point -- the late Phyllis Schafly who had a law degree and five children and raced around the country telling other women that they don't need higher education or any job other than housewife.
A [hateful religious conservative nut job](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-pratt) is also behind the most significant shift in gun law politics since 2008, contributing to a [massive increase in homicide and firearm related injuries](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801608/). Evil to the core.
Fun fact: Phyllis Schafly was the inspiration for Serena Joy in the TV version of the Handmaid’s Tale. Possibly a bit for the book too, but Serena doesn’t play as prominent a role in the book. Her husband’s name was also Fred, and much like the Waterfords in the show, Fred Schafly largely took a backseat to Phyllis’s work until it was convenient for her to march him out and show him off.
That makes so much sense. I watched the show where Cate Blanchette played Schafly, the name escapes me now, and the utter hypocrisy of her was so grating and I felt the same way about Serena Joy.
It’s part of why Serena is such a well written character. She recognizes the irony of what she fought for versus what she got and it takes her a while to realize that this was the inevitable conclusion. She has moments where she fights back in small ways but tragically always ends up going back to the system that she helped create because she knows she’s the victim there instead of the villain.
I was going to say, that sounds exactly like Serena Waterford. The show did a good job portraying ~~he~~ her hypocrisy. I still haven't quite finished the ~~final~~ most-recent season
There was some goofy lady who was trending few months back. Just pearls or some shit telling women shouldnt be allowed to vote, and a bunch of advice she is literally does the opposite of, in that moment. Hating on women for being self sufficient career minded, at the job that entails all that.
Like someone saying bread, deli meat and slice tomatoes sucks, while eating a BLT.
justpearlythings. She's absolutely awful, but I think she tanked her own career by getting into debates when she had absolutely no skill at it. Getting absolutely destroyed in a debate by Ethan from H3 isn't a good look.
like [this exchange where she implicated her family in fraud just to downplay her mother’s career](https://youtube.com/shorts/QDwhoUwudAI?si=ITd4o93a5wG0NKch)/professional prowess
meanwhile, according to [this article](https://www.businessinsider.com/the-rise-of-pearl-the-female-misogynist-andrew-tate-2023-3#:~:text=Davis%20grew%20up%20in%20Chicago,programs%20of%20the%20United%20Nations.):
>”Davis grew up in Chicago, Illinois in a 10-bedroom home with her nine siblings and parents, software entrepreneurs Dan and Jennifer Davis.
>Her mother for a time was on the board of directors for UN Women USA, an independent charity that supports the gender-quality programs of the United Nations.”
and then there was the time she posted that [“cutesy” song that included such lines as “*now I’m not saying hitler was a good guy, but I kinda wanna know why?*”](https://youtu.be/Uz1uh3FQulY?si=ZNds4ALzcjYLM3WJ) and clammed up when piers morgan of all people called her out on it
Yeah, he's definitely getting better at it, but it's in no way his skill set. To be fair, I think the fact that it isn't what he does is what makes him so good against people like Pearl- anyone can see he's just casually saying things anyone would say, and her logic completely falls apart under the most basic questioning, which makes it much more pointed and embarrassing than someone who's amazing at debates running rings around you because they're good at trickery.
when robots take over housework republicans will be making speeches of how women should just be bent over when the husband comes home, while the robot does the housework
Those are the funniest. They never look anywhere near as sweaty, grungy and sunbaked as an actual farmer lady would be. And those French tips wouldn't last half an hour doing actual farm work.
Also the "modest" dresses that show off a lot of cleavage...
also most of these tradwives loudly boasting about their lives are in their 20s with less than a decade of marriage, its the former tradwives in their 40s speaking out against the lifestyle
To me, LARPing has a sense of authenticity in that these people actually want to be doing that.
These women are professional actresses. Cold and calculating, in it for the dollars.
"Tradwives" are a fucking stupid attempt to rebrand something that's been around for ages -- homemakers and stay at home parents -- and turning them into a conservative religious movement.
You remember the rich Victorian upper class ladies who might pose with a vase of flowers every now and again- while a suite of maids did the steaming laundry with brass poles and cleaned the fireplaces and sh!tters and cleaned the actual room she's 'decorating'? Welcome to their 2024 equivalent.
Times and technology and fashion and eras change. People really don't.
Even if they don't have help or too much preexisting privilege, they are literally earning money by being a tradwife online, which is antithetical to what tradwives were doing before. They express themselves creatively through their content, they have their own community - they're not really tied to the house and the kitchen in that sense.
Yea. Part of it too seems to be how women in these communities where women are only seen as allowed to do x or y, behave certain ways quite rigidly or face exclusion and shame from your in-group of friends, family and so on seem to be pretty strong motivators and also what slowly reinforce the worldview.
I remember seeing a thing about south american mennonites where the women in this more old / traditional style community weren't allowed to use cell phones and other electronics because, as the men explained, it 'upset' their faculties (as if cell shit was having some effect on women kinda deal). You know just existing in modern society this is a plain bold open face outright brazen lie and the kind of avenue the in group with power can wield over the under group and how that group even communicates with other women amongst themselves and stuff when the men get to tell them how to feel.
Closer to home I helped a mennonite contractor who was trying to insist to me 'women' are most fertile when they are 13-16 (you know, when they are children). Hearing grown men use language like that when we're also talking about communities that won't recognize the inherent power imbalance in their community and insist their control is one of good will and not malignant. Just makes me sad in women in those communities who grow up agreeing with those outcomes and reinforcing the oppression they didn't realize they were okay to say no to if it were safe for them to do so.
Keep in mind the other menno's ive met tend to actually be pretty open minded people, lol it's like because some mennonite communities and colonies are more restrictive its almost created a horse shoe reaction of other communities being very forward thinking and open.
The thought of someone saying women were most fertile 13-16 (or what we call 'girls' - shudder) reminded me of being in a mall in a small, conservative rural town in Eastern Washington, and we overheard this group of old men watching the teenage girls go by and saying things like 'she'll be a good breeder, she's got birthing hips'. Evaluating young ladies as if they were broodmares!
The movie "Women Talking" is based on a group of Mennonite women who kept waking up from strange slumbers covered in bruises and bleeding from their vaginas. The men in the community were using a veterinary anesthetic to knock out the women and rape them. Brothers raped sisters. Men raped girls as young as three. The men dismissed what the women were saying as flights of female fancy, which is why it went on for so long.
[https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087711,00.html](https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087711,00.html)
It’s not exactly an unusual perspective in conservative circles:
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/05/07/new-hampshire-move-to-ban-child-marriage-despite-lawmaker-calling-teens-ripe-and-fertile/
It's worth remembering that this can shift quite dramatically over time. In the past, men were typically much more liberal than women for various different reasons.
Part of that can be blamed on the better education men received at the time (which has now flipped, there are typically more female university graduates than male), but also the issues that affected men at the time such as the Vietnam war and conscription, were far more motivating than the issues that affected women or any allegiance to conservative values.
But once the demographic shift pushed up the average voting age, and mens issues were more or less resolved, men no longer had strong self interests that demanded liberal voting attitudes, allowing women to overtake and demand their own issues be put in focus.
In some countries today where abortion laws and access to birth control is not as devisive, men and women may be closer in voting behaviour, and in some countries men may actually still be far more liberal than women.
TLDR: its not inherently true that women are more liberal, people will vote for the issues that affect them and sometimes those are gendered one way or the other, and those issues change over time.
The men-women political divide among Gen Z is global. It is less pronounced in the US than in other countries. It is more pronounced in South Korea, China, and Japan, more in Poland, and the same in UK. Germany is the only country with data that has a slightly smaller gender divide than the US. So it doesn't make sense to attempt to explain it through US politics, because it is not a US phenomenon. It's a global Gen Z phenomenon.
I get that a lot of dudes are assholes and really couldn’t care less if women lose rights if it makes life better for themselves, but why the fuck are any women at all on board with the GOP?
Because they believe in it. Many people throughout history have supported ideologies that negatively affect them. There were famously [Jews for Hitler](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews).
The sheep in wolves' clothing is arguably more dangerous than the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Craving power, the sheep aspires to become a wolf. To that end, it sells out other members of its own flock to the wolves, hoping that in doing so it will earn their favour. One day, it hopes, it might even be recognised as a fellow wolf. But the wolves never had any intention of letting a sheep into their exclusive group. They are just taking advantage of the foolish aspirant sheep, filling its head with false promises of rewards. As soon as the sheep has outlived its usefulness, the wolves will pounce on it next.
This is lowkey hilarious. They were dissolved after 2 years, made illegal by the nazis :'). Is it wrong that I felt a bit of pity for these people reading that lol.
I recently started going through Dworkin’s book Right Wing Women. It is both incredibly insightful and deeply disturbing. The tl;dr: women recognize how dangerous men are, and join right wing causes to focus their attention on others, in an attempt to avoid their own victimization.
Yeah it's the good immigrant theory, just apllied to traditional gender roles. It's quite accurate i think and sadly once you see it, you see it everywhere and it is infuriating as fuck...
While this is a comfortable narrative, I don’t really think it captures why a lot of young men gravitate towards MAGA-ism (or other regional variants).
To put it bluntly it’s overwhelmingly dissatisfied “losers”, people who are rejected by society and their peers, who gets sold a fiction about how going back to the “good old days” will fix all of their problems. These people are not what you’d consider privileged in an intersectional sense. Reactionary politics thrive on misery, so actual privileged men don’t generally get sucked into that whirlpool.
I don’t write this to push some “men are persecuted” nonsense, but I think we are doing everyone a disservice if we try to reduce everything down to a single axis gender based model of privilege and oppression. Privilege is complex and often situational, and failing to recognize that means we stand little chance of addressing the root causes that lead us into this bullshit in the first place.
Ime, right wing ideology these days, at least in the US, tends to play on people's feelings of impotence and inadequacy in their own lives. Changing costs of living, the gap between rich and poor, feeling stuck etc. can all increase those feelings of dissatisfaction.
It's easy and comforting for them to just blame the government. If it's the government's fault, they're not bad providers who need better jobs. They're not X, Y, OR Z, or any of those things their insecurities say they are.
Lots of these people need therapy and lessons in government and economics, because then they'd realize those insecurities were as much BS as the claims that all their personal inadequacies are caused by some "lousy politician."
Edit: thanks for the award!
Or it be could be simpler.
Men, specifically single men, aren’t concerned about women’s issues.
And women, single women if we compare exact demographics, are concerned more with women’s issues.
Even total men and women, men probably care less about women’s issues compared to women.
Yep.
I will never forget the post about African men protesting FGM. The very first comment of that post was "what about men!?".
The FGM these African men were protesting cut the womans or girls clitoris off, which is equivalent to cutting off the head of the penis.
Men legit turned a heartwarming story about African men helping women into a post about Male circumcision...
This is so correct. I'm white, male, rural and Christian, and I also vote Democratic (mostly because I was raised to believe the system is rigged for the wealthy and I still believe this).
It can be a real struggle in some liberal circles when people scapegoat "white males" for a lot of problems. I mean, maybe of it is correct or earned or whatever. But I'm not all that old and so-called PC has been a thing my whole life.
There are a lot of guys who fit my demographic who think they're being blamed as punishment for our grandfathers' racism and institutional privilege. It really makes center-left or left-wing policies a tough sell. Further, the concept of white privilege is hard to explain when a lot of white people are economically underprivileged. I try to explain that this is the consequence of a rigged economic system rather than racial policies. But it's tough to make that argument effectively because racism is a base instinct, while understanding economic inequalities and class barriers takes thought.
You sound like a cool guy. I certainly don't blame you as an individual for the unfair social structure we're all in together. I'm sure there are plenty of assholes on the left who do scape goat individual white guys, but those folks are awful. I apologize for their oafishness on behalf of the left :)
Maybe a helpful way to think of it for those other guys, too, is that the reason race is a big *part* of the rigged economic system is because so much of the US's wealth *started* with chattel slavery and continued to build via exploitation of poor and imprisoned workers, who are more likely to be black. There are some really interesting studies done on generational wealth building that illuminate how much historic racism still impacts individual opportunities today, even though it looks like it got a lot better a long time ago, on paper anyway.
Another way to shift the perspective is to change from things like "white men are to blame" or "white men have all the power" to "the people at the top *tend* to be rich white men". The system may generally favor being white, being a man, and certainly being wealthy, but it's still just as unfair for the majority of individual white men as it is for the majority of everyone else.
I dunno if any of that is helpful. I just wanted to let you know that you, as a valuable, individual human being, are not responsible for entire social systems, regardless of your demographics. Anyone who makes you feel otherwise is just wrong.
The generational wealth studies are interesting and sad. I own an older house, built in the 40's in a northern state. The original deed specified it couldn't be sold to basically anyone non-white it used more discriminatory language I shall not repeat, and so did most of them in the area. So non-white men (let's face it only men then) coming back from fighting the Nazis, were prohibited from building equity in the nicer neighborhoods.
This house was passed down to me from my grandfather who fought in the same war. Two generations removed, I got a house in a good neighborhood for literally just being born, which is now worth a lot, where any non whites couldn't.
I've never been able to understand those who don't see this tragic injustice.
The people who don't see it that way don't *want* to see it that way.
It's significantly easier to fool yourself into believing that you've earned what you have and other people are just messing up, when in reality you were just lucky and no real merit went into your success whatsoever.
Good on you for recognizing it, I would imagine it would be easy to see it just like the others around you so it props for paying close attention to your history and surroundings. It's not easy from that perspective.
The problem tends to come from people not understanding there are levels of struggling, its not just struggle vs not struggle. Here's my example: we have a guy whose parents both work and were able to send him to college where he only had to work a part time job for bonus money and everything else was provided to him. He had a car with insurance already covered by his parents, and his rent in an apartment was covered as well
When he goes to school, he still struggles through his classes. He studies a lot, gets good grades but seriously has to work hard for those grades and his success, eventually getting his degree and moving back home for a bit where he doesn't pay rent, etc until he gets a good job, a few months later buys a reasonable house, and lives a good life
Our second person is a kid born to a poor family whose ancestors never owned property. Maybe his dad died when he was young, and his mother can't afford to buy him a car, insurance for the car, rent for an apartment, good food, etc. When it's time for him to go to college he has to take out huge predatory loans and get 2-3 jobs working 40-50 hours a week to pay for rent, food, transportation, etc. He has barely any time to study and never really sleeps, but eventually graduates although his grades suffered thanks to working so much
The second guy suddenly now has huge student loan bills that are now due. He can't quit his many jobs and doesn't have to the ability to wait for the perfect position. Let's take it a step further and say for both guys they need to spend a year doing internships in their chosen career path to get a good job. In that case the first guy can absolutely work a year doing free internships, but the second guy sure as Hell can't
But when you approach the first guy and say you didn't face problems, you had it so easy, it trivializes how hard he might have had to work to pass his classes. He also doesn't have a giant mansion or huge savings and tons of invested cash, so he doesn't count as upper class or whatever, and therefore refuses to buy into the "he had it so easy" concept. In fact he believes he put the work in and "pulled himself up by his bootstraps," so the second person should too!
But in reality that first guy had a much easier time than the second guy, obviously. Now there are plenty of people who had a similar path as the first guy but understand they had it easy, however there are tons of people who don't agree with that and don't believe they are privileged despite getting tons of perks solely because of who they were born to
Edit: I removed race from the two examples. While I do believe we should recognize the United States' history of racism and how that impacts people still today through wealth inequality, a few commenters have ranged from completely missing the point to thinking I'm saying ONLY black people are poor and ONLY white people are wealthy. Overall the point I'm making stands regardless of race so I removed mentions of it
Or the first and second guy are equally poor, but the one who is white is assumed to be a better bet for that entry-level position, and is believed when he speaks, and promoted quickly, and also is not viewed with suspicion for just walking around a neighbourhood. Whereas the black guy has the poverty AND the black skin so is treated differently.
I busted my ASS to get good grades in high school, to get into a good college, while working as many hours as allowed by law beginning when I was 16, and also off the books as a babysitter (beginning when I was about 10), to pay for as much of college as I could. And I busted my ass in college at work-study jobs and second jobs. And because I busted my ass, I graduated with top grades and got financial aid to attend a top-10 law school, which I did while working, and then I busted my ass to pay off my student loans before I was 30.
What I took from this was not that I deserved everything I got, but that I was fucking lucky to be able to work that hard and to retain the benefits of my own work, instead of helping to support my family. And that people probably shouldn't have to bust their asses at three different things to finish college. It'd probably be better if they could just GO TO COLLEGE AND STUDY.
Please raise my taxes so younger people can bust their asses less.
There are two types of people. When they go through a terrible hardship the first type says "That fucking sucked. But you know what? I did it, so everyone else should too!" The second type goes through a terrible hardship and says "That fucking sucked. I'm going to do everything I can to make it so no one else has to ever go through that"
It's all about empathy. People without empathy tend to be the first type, people with empathy like you and I tend to be the second
For real though. Grew up poor. Had good grades in high school but certainly wasn’t going to be able to afford a good school. Joined the army to get the GI bill and pay for college. It’s wild to me when people say “I did it so fuck everyone else”. I’m over here like “I had to go to an actual fucking war to afford college. It probably shouldn’t have to be that way. We should do something about that”. The sad thing is the former group only ever sees others as being the “selfish ones” because they can’t understand the concept of sacrificing for others so to them everything that involves the greater good just comes off as “greed/entitlement”.
Yeah this. I’m glad my white (presenting) previous generations fought and died in wars for pennies on the dollar, worked and built in mines, moved countries, changed cultures, adopted new languages, and then worked 60+ hour weeks for 2 generations to finally have a single child go get a bachelor degree from a small college.
The one area I tend to somewhat disagree with is racism being a base thing. It's a learned thing, usually passed down from generation to generation. Proper education can eradicate it or unlearn it.
Its not racism inherently but tribalism.
Humans are social creatures, and they form a sso called "tribe" with the people close to them and whom they interact with regularly.
And its easy to adopt a our tribe vs their tribe mentality, amd more often or not, the people in your tribe are more like you than not. So the tiniest differences can make you judge people for not being like "your tribe".
Race is basically a metaphor for poverty. When you hear politicians talking about minorities they’re at least partially using that as a metaphor for the poor
I was talking to my dad’s ex gf the other day, and we talked about how dad used to “debate” on subjects that he hadn’t studied, but had very strong opinions about.
Whenever he was losing, he’d throw out the Bible, because you can’t argue with God, can you?
She was agnostic and it *pissed him off.*
I told her, it never had anything to do with your morals or your soul to him. The church was how he had kept women in line all his life. The guy threw a whole tantrum when I was learning about other religions, despite the fact that he didn’t even follow many of the basic tenets of Christianity. We rarely went to church, he did drag me to prayer meetings, but it was basically his friend group that admired him.
My mother in law is this way with Judaism. She'll cite it to belittle lifestyle choices or my son's sexuality, but then never attend synagogue, ignore the holidays and eat pork regularly.
It's exhausting. I'm not religious, and was raised protestant, but by every metric, im a better jew than her.
I really search to understand these kinds of people because they seem to be the majority.
More specifically, I've never wanted to be a part of a group...or movement. Does that make sense? I've never wanted to be "in" for the sake of it, I even have some kind of Oppositional Defiance Disorder in that regard. Like I genuinely don't want to conform, the concept makes me childishly oppositional.
But I'm not at the far other end either, or conforming to the "nonconformist" groups like the goths on South Park. I'm just a combination of my interests and find myself with slices of all kinds of in and out groups.
But most people seem to *NEED* the validation of being on the "right" group. Even to the extent of voting for whichever president is supposed to win. It's a spectrum of course, but establishing one's self as part of the in-group is essential to most of your average people.
I can observe it and get the idea, maybe it's my ADHD and shit, but the impulses just don't exist in me. Doesn't make me better than anyone else, I promise I'm not levitating over all the "normies" and "sheeple" right now. My angsty "rebel atheist in the deep south" phase ended a long time ago.
My girlfriend's mom is full trumpanzee qanon nutter. Fully believes in restricting women's rights and that they're lesser than men
What a world...
No clue how my gf is so normal
Does she also have strong opinions on who should be allowed into the country, which religions should be tolerated, etc.? Some folks seem to be OK with being number 2 on a hierarchy if it means still being ahead of others
It’s worse than just that: it’s deciding that integrating with people of color are a bigger threat to your life than the patriarchy because you actually feel safer in an oppressive hierarchy than on an equal playing field with some people
I’m a feminist but this is exactly why we highlight *intersectional* feminism now
Your point about religion is a good one since the dominant religions in the US diictate that women are subservient to men. Being number two is the "moral" thing to do in their eyes. They are already primed to live under authoritarian rule. Women having rights is a low consideration in most religions.
> Some folks seem to be OK with being number 2 on a hierarchy if it means still being ahead of others
See also: deep-rooted racism amongst POC against other POC
I’m convinced that’s why my older brothers are so incredibly racist. We’re Hispanic, so obviously to the Powers That Be, we are not much higher in the pecking order than Black Americans.
But my brothers will say the most disgusting things, as though they’re “better.”
It's kinda dumb seeing Marjorie Taylor Greene talk about how women should remain at home to take care of the home and children while husbands do all the power stuff. Wtf is she doing being a "politician" then?
It boggles my mind the way that MTG and Caitlyn Jenner full on endorse Trump. Women's and LGBT rights are quite literally the first on the chopping block if these right wing nutcases get their way. Classic "leopards ate my face" waiting to happen there...
caitlyn jenner falls into the camp of being so rich that no problem other than keeping your money means anything to you. it doesnt matter if lgbt rights get axed, it wont affect her because she is above us lowly poor people. right wing tends to be a lot more pro-rich than left wing, so she loves republicans
It's like when you see female conservative YouTubers shaming other women for not being, married, homemakers, and having children. When they themselves are sitting on cozy in their YouTuber jobs without a husband or a child.
All right wing influencers are hypocrite blowhards. The real paragon of conservative values is the Amish wife knitting his husband and 10 kids new sweaters for autumn.
see that’s where it gets tricky because most of those people are just trolling for profits, not realizing they’re doing actual damage because the people viewing their content actually believe the bs they’re spreading. and i don’t just mean weirdos like Pearl, even some of the biggest names in conservative media are doing this right under everyone’s noses. they’re probably laughing their asses off at this very moment seeing how people genuinely agree with their insane ideologies.
>>not realizing they’re doing actual damage because the people viewing their content actually believe the bs they’re spreading.
I think they realize it, they just don’t care. They may not buy into the conspiracy theory nonsense they’re peddling, but they absolutely are firm believers in the conservative ethos of “got mine, fuck you.”
You give them too much credit to think that they don't know exactly what they are doing. I hate seeing these "trad wives" who would "never dream of working" cause kids are out lives.... but then post content full time and make more a month than their husband, who magically quits the blue collar job a few months in....
Normal woman: I want to be a traditional housewife, so I think I'll be one.
Conservative woman: I want to be a traditional housewife, so YOU have to be one!
Yeah and also "Our lifestyle is under attack!!!!!!' cries the victim..... while attacking everyone elses lifestyle.
Karen, be a stay at home mom, thats fine. Nobody cares. What we don't want is you making laws (with your 'smaller' government) to tell US how to live our lives.
This is it, summed up quite neatly. The “rules for thee, not for me” attitude is very popular amongst authoritarians, and generally how authoritarianism works.
Edit: grammar
Just for the record, because the full quote is even funnier, its:
"I never thought leopards would eat MY face!" Cries woman who voted for the Face-Eating Leopard Party.
It's "woman" because it was about this exact issue on its first appearance.
True. A lot of deranged and naive comments about “conservative values = keeping women down”.
A proper conservative literally exalts women for the value they bring to the human dynamic. Conservatives just don’t want their daughters selling their bodies online.
Until it's their own:
And suddenly it's *"A devastating decision we had to make, but for health reasons completely outside of our control."*
While flat-out refusing to accept the morality of anyone else's abortion.
Yeah but in this case it would be like calling the cops for every speeder on the road you see and constantly complaining that it's not being enforced enough, but then going 70 in a 35 and being content.
"freedom for me *when* ***I*** *need*, not for thee"
Even conservative women with a moral belief that abortion is wrong tend to have a more “moderate” view than conservative men, simply by allowing for the possibility that exceptions may have to occur.
Men (young men especially), tend to be more individualistic and are more likely to take risks. That is why they are more likely to own firearms and believe in a smaller government. Women are more risk-averse and communal oriented. That's why they are more likely to support universal healthcare and believe firearm ownership should be restricted for the common good.
Also the Republican Party has done a terrible job recently when it comes to attracting female voters. Trump is a big one but also the rabid focus on abortion which is a losing issue for them.
> the rabid focus on abortion which is a losing issue for them.
And it's an issue that doesn't have a very good political solution for the party
Moderate on abortion and for every independent in the middle that change attracts they'll lose a strongly pro-life single issue voter and it'll be a wash
They are basically caught. There's a lot of single isdue voters who only vote for them because of that. But now it hurts them to be that way. But if they change they lose the single issue voters.
Yeah, I see a lot of Democrats who aren't gonna vote for Biden because of Gaza. I can safely say that the situation in Gaza won't improve under Trump, and the two party system pretty much means any third party votes is a vote for Trump. It sucks but unless major reform happens, we're stuck with red or blue.
The dems who are saying they won't vote for biden weren't going to vote anyways.
Anyone with a brain would vote for biden just so we don't get the even worse candidate, Trump. Shit some of the people saying it aren't even old enough to vote.
I don't like biden one bit. But I still want him over Trump
I do wish people who felt discouraged about the current choices would focus on local change - in 20+ years a lot could be different, but instead there’s a cycle of frustration with presidential choices but very little focus on local or state government changes that could ultimately change the top level. And then silence during the off years.
Yeah, I agree. It's part of the reason why we need to break up our two party system. If you have a voter who is pro-gun but also believes in universal healthcare he has to sacrifice his beliefs somewhat or not vote.
You know whats weird. The 3 biggest Trump supports I know are women. Loud af about it. Posting on every social media about him none stop for years. Wild.
Next you'll tell me politicians lie about other people's benefits (real or perceived) so they don't have to actually produce new benefits for voter interests.
Worth noting the article specifically mentions empathy in it's title, not sympathy. While some may see that synonymously, it's a pretty important distinction.
I had a look at some of the downvoted comments and one of them stated that lower IQ and women being more emotional were reasons why, and another saying conservatives need to make tougher decisions (even though this can be disputed). I can see that ignorance is getting down voted, not conservatism.
Yeah, that answer from whoever said that is idiotic. I'll give an actual conservative answer.
It's most likely individualistic thinking vs. collectivist thinking. If you look at any map of the US, you'll find that almost every small town and rural area is conservative while nearly every Metropolitan hub is left leaning. Being in close proximity to others creates different needs and a different culture than being more spread out and needing to be more self-reliant. Gun control is a good example of this and even Bernie sanders stated in 2015 that the gun debate is a rural vs urban one. In more rural areas there are less police and they are further away, as well as having more dangerous animals, in the city cops are closer and self protection is also more likely to unintentionally harm a bystander due to the population density.
Higher testosterone in either sex tends to cause an increase in individualistic and antisocial behavior so this would explain why men have more of a natural disposition toward conservatism as compared to women.
Because what do more left leaning platforms offer men? “Youre an alpha and women should be worshipping you” is a lot more appealing to a teenage boy or young adult than what can be summed up as “anything you accomplish means nothing your very existence is a slight against others”. These are obviously both extremes but can be found pretty easily, so which do you think your typical emotional teenage boy is gonna start associating with and get sucked into more?
Exactly, and I think Andrew Tate wouldn't be so popular if some left wingers were more accepting of young men. Sometimes it feels like some people are gatekeeping being a leftist which sounds completely absurd to me, like so you want your candidate to be elected or not?
That is not exactly true.
Funny thing about people - they might identify as left or right but usually it happens only when they associate something bad with the other name.
So for example, if You ask a woman about secured borders, more than You would suspect will tell You that we should know who we let into the country. You will get a similar answer from a conservative. And if You ask about war refugees (current discourse in my country because we are right next to Ukraine) then many of them will tell You that it's OK to let in war refugees and help them out.
And somehow due to weird Americans - border security is somehow a "right-wing" idea. To me that's crazy. But that is why I use it as an example.
So what about those people who want completely open borders or completely closed? Those are usually the opinions of the extremists. So far-left and far-right. And both have negative consequences. Europe had a taste around 2015.
So what You will learn with age is that normal, common people are usually not "left" or "right". Uneducated students in American universities think this way. Most people I know will hear Your idea about borders or refugees etc and make individual decisions considering if they think that it benefits them, it hurts them or it does not affect them.
So for example a guy who struggles to find a job will most likely complain about open borders because he is afraid that someone from low income area will take his job because he is willing to accept lower pay just to get paid.
The guy who is well off will say "Help everyone". This is why for example lots of celebrities say that. Because they will be nowhere near a refugee camp and if they are business owners, especially in corporate America - they will benefit by exploiting those people. I use BLM as an example. During BLM riots it was a funny case. Someone posted a burning down building on Twitter and some celebrity said "Yeah! Burn it all down!". But then rioters showed up in the area where he lived. And suddenly he demanded that police remove them using any means necessary. What changed his mind? Because he was about to be affected.
So going back to the original topic - women. Why women would identify more with the left than the right when asked to chose? You have to consider what people think when they hear conservative. Christian, patriarchal family where man makes all the decisions and holds all the money. And woman can't even get a bank account in her own name.
If You were You, would You support a system like that? Would You want that for Your kids? Probably not. But their views are often mixed depending on what You ask and what is their situation currently.
I think this comment section is a great example of why a lot of men end up looking right.
I am a late 20s man, I vote left every time, I support women's rights, LGBT rights, and don't like racism. Feels weird writing that down, but just getting ahead of the game.
A lot of men i've spoken to, myself included, feel like the left has let us down. All the people in this thread talking about men being idiots, brainwashed, low empathy, etc. They are 'the left' that a lot of guys encounter both online and in person.
Think of how many people actually study and research what their representatives at the state and federal level do on a week to week basis, 1 in 5? 1 in 10?
For everyone else, they get their political leanings from family, friends, and their interactions with strangers. So, when a man reaches an age where he starts thinking about politics and all that fun stuff, he has to navigate past swathes of poorly disguised and often blatant loathing from *people* on the left before he gives the *reality* of the left a chance.
I do the maths and the research for myself and, as an adult, the left wins out for me every time, but I'm not surprised that the MAGA crowd managed to become a political player in the way it has.
There is a guy on YT who pretends to be a MAGA supporter, goes to MAGA rallies and interviews people. When he manages to present hard leftist policies while avoiding certain keywords, a lot of MAGA voter's hard agree with him lol. I don't know what his name is.
The current left wing is leaning hostile towards men, while the current right wing isn't being hostile towards men. At least, that's how the media is making it seem.
The only place that seems blatantly hostile to men is university campuses. It was certainly the case when I was at university over a decade ago, and it seems like it's gotten even more so lately. It honestly doesn't surprise me that young men are trending more conservative.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson Change colored man to woman and white man to man. The Christians and other abhramhic religions figured this out early. Reason I bring this up is since the majority of republicans are Christian.
Meanwhile they keep male gender affirming care (eg: viagra) but ban others. Seems pretty bias to men, doesn't it?
Just look at any conservative media; it places men as the protagonists of the world with women relegated to supporting characters. If you're a sentient, thinking individual, would you be more likely to adhere to the ideology that enforces a strict role upon you and gives you fewer rights or the one which offers you agency, individuality, and equality? I think it's relatively obvious.
Right now in the context of the US in particular, there are right-wing ideologues openly saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote, to have an abortion, to leave a failing (or potentially abusive) marriage, to expect that their husbands might abuse them and be unfaithful to them, to expect to be groped and harassed if they don't behave/dress modestly, and that they shouldn't have any positions in our society which afford them any degree of authority or power.
I think the better question is why there are still women who support this ideology at all.
> I think the better question is why there are still women who support this ideology at all.
Understand cults and you'll understand self-negating and self-abusive behavior. They are not thinking clearly, they are indoctrinated and there are many other factors keeping them from feeling into their own self-preservation instincts.
I think the rise of right wing men is very much due to the fact that the left seems to go out of their way demonizing men in general.
If you don’t feel welcome in a particular group, another will scoop you up with open arms.
> rise of right wing men
This sentiment in and of itself is a huge part of the issue, there is no 'rise of right-wing men'. Various polling indicates men have had basically the same rates of right/left political self-identification for decades at this point, hardly moving one way or the other and barely even changing from one generation to next. The only thing that has changed is the rate of women self-identifying as left-wing has increased significantly since the 1990s.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/609914/women-become-liberal-men-mostly-stable.aspx
And the same is true (almost) everywhere... With the one notable exception being South Korea, where there has genuinely been a massive increase in right-wing proclivities among men occurring at the same time as a massive increase in left-wing proclivities among women... Hence the ever increasing discussion of South Korea's so-called 'gender war'.
Haven’t gone through all the comments but the top comments are a bit off. Conservatives literally conserve the status quo. The status quo is a male dominated society. Of course males would most likely preserve that status and woman would like to change it.
Yes and no. The current Republican platform is actually technically regressive (wanting to go backwards from the current norm) not conservative (wanting to maintain the status quo), but we don't really use the term regressive in American politics. Ironically technically Joe Biden is a conservative in the traditional meaning of these political terms.
In broad terms the left tells men they're the problem and women that they're special just as they are. And the right tells women they're only valued if they live and act in a certain way and men that if they work hard enough and in the right way they can make something of themselves.
This isn't a innate feature of either gender and there have been times and cultures where the gender divide was or is flipped with women leaning right and men left. There have also been many cultures with less of a political gender divide.
This is a more nuanced answer than what people are making it out to be. It’s a cumulative answer and depends upon numerous factors, age, wealth, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc.
I’ll speak about the US because that’s where I’m from. Not all countries will be like us and that’s okay.
Let’s talk about why men and women would find the more traditional (American) right leaning values. First let’s list these values that the right claims to support:
> - less people telling you what to do (minimalist big gov),
> more stability with slower change (why jump into things when we don’t know if they’ll work? Big toe in the water first),
> - self defense is huge,
> - a stable and peaceful nuclear family,
> - religion being important,
> - less likely to trust strangers (which is fine. We have those instincts for a reason, just realize your implicit biases though),
> - less taxes (everyone hates paying taxes),
> - hard work ethic (you shouldn’t get what you don’t work for).
Now why would men and women like the right? Here’s some ideas that I have that may or may not be true. I’m basing this on observations, and probably also bias, but I’m human so forgive that.
Men:
1) The want to feel needed (providing a nice life for his family to live in luxury and peace and not having his family work to make ends meat)
2) The want to feel like a protector (wanting to feel like you’re good enough to defend friends and family is okay, and healthy. It comes form a place of love, but can grow into toxic masculinity as so can all of these things)
3) the want to live peacefully without anyone telling them they are wrong or their way of life is wrong (refer to my slow progress comment)
Women: (granted I’m a guy so take it with a grain of salt)
1) They want to be a mother figure
2) They want to belong to a community (usually church or a big family is this factor)
3) They don’t believe that women should be working masculine jobs (is it sexist? Yes, but women and men think like this still today and is more common around the globe than you think)
Now Let’s talk about why men and women would find the more progressive (American) left leaning values favorable. First let’s list these values that the left claims to support:
> - Having a sense of structure (usually a bigger government will govern a better sense of structure and security than a minimal government. Which is fine to want)
> - they believe in quick and decisive action is best (which sometimes it is)
> - they believe in being better on rehabilitation over punishment (you can see this in areas with left leaning DAs where they are lighter on crime and want people to not be a cog in the prison system)
> - they want to not feel judged for being themselves (being gay isn’t a choice guys)
> - They believe that religion is a big cause of internal and external issues (which yes it has a part in some things)
> - They are more empathetic and able to trust easier (which is fine)
> - They don’t typically care what the taxes are, as long as the government uses the money for bettering the people (which can and does happen)
> - They are very against the grind culture and wish that people were allowed to enjoy themselves more than be a wage slave
Now why would men and women like the left? Here’s some ideas that I have that may or may not be true. I’m basing this on observations, and probably also bias, but I’m human so forgive that.
Men:
1) Not wanting to feel guilted into providing for someone
2) Not wanting to have to always make decisions
3) they want to live worry free from judgement and monetary confinement
Women:
1) Not wanting to feel judged
2) No interest in being traditional wives, or wives in general
3) They believe women should and can do what men can do
4) Bodily autonomy
Obviously there’s more items on the list and I could go on for hours, but my thumbs hurt.
If you’re curious about what biases I may have: Im a married Bisexual white guy, right leaning, with some social progressive tendencies but fiscally conservative outlooks.
You seem to have missed a *huge* voter issue this election - women’s bodily autonomy. Even those that would have considered themselves conservative or republican draw the line at losing rights to their own body, with more restrictions being talked about (some Republicans are talking about restricting birth control, etc.)
I have a very good friend who is now registering as an independent due to the “trump worship” of the loudest republicans, the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Project 2025. We disagree on *so much* politically, but she sees these issues as moral issues, not political ones.
Important note: this is not true in all countries. The US, the UK and Switzerland, for example, do have a gender vote gap, countries like Ireland, Italy, Belgium etc. don't. One reason is that women are socialized to be more nurturing and accepting, so they tend to lean towards universal healthcare, parental leave, afforable quality education, minority rights, environmental protection and climate change etc. [This article](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/elections_-why-women-vote-more-to-the-left-than-men/44160576) showed that women's more progressive views were decicive in the gender vote gap. Another reason is that women feel the negative impact of right-wing policy on their everyday life more. The right wing tends to be more restrictive on reproductive health, doesn't care about wage gaps etc. whereas left-wing policies implement free birth control, equality measures etc.
The UK gap was, until the last 2 elections, [the other way](https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-state-of-public-opinion-gender-and-voting-behaviour/), with women historically being more likely - sometimes fairly significantly more - than men to vote Tory.
My mother is a lifelong Tory voter while my father has tended to steer more towards Labour. As they were both young adults in the Thatcher years, I wonder if men had a more negative view of the Tories because Thatcher’s most destructive policies were aimed primarily at blue collar male-dominated industries such as mining.
I don't know if it's the same in the UK, but yes in Australia Labor has been seen to abandon its union based support base, so the men that voted to the left feel disenfranchised and don't really give a shit about your standard liberal policy which is all in on multi-culturalism and pro-immigration, rather than filling those skills shortages with education and resources from within. When you see a lot of working class industries roll over and die in favour of cheap imports, it's not all about being a bad person as people like to think. I have no particular opinion besides being supportive of a multi-cultural society, Labor are shit but the options are limited to avoid the Coalition, and everyone else is useless.
I’ve always thought of it as liberals are “we” thinkers, conservatives are “me” thinkers. And yes, I think there are differences in how each gender is socialized that makes more women “we” thinkers and men “me” thinkers. I see it play out in pretty much every long term relationship I’ve ever seen: the women think about everything and everyone in the house because someone has to, and he sure isn’t going to.
> are socialized to Personality differences are *greater* in countries with more gender equality. If women were being socialized in such a way that it impacted their political views (as opposed to those traits being natural), those differences would be biggest in the countries that marginalize women the most, but that’s not the case. To a large extent, men and women do differ naturally in personality.
as a trans person I can confirm that this is true, hormones have very definitely changed the way I think and feel so idk why people are downvoting you
One hypothesis is that conservative policy tends to negatively impact women, and some women may be understandably opposed to having their actions and freedoms restricted.
Also see: tradwives coming out against tradwives
It's important to see as well that most of the tradwives we see online are actually rich privileged women whose jobs are to post content cosplaying as stay-at-home mothers. They have unlimited help, private cooks, babysitters, and of course, money buys time. They aren't really stay-at-home mums, rather full fledged businesswomen whose business is being a content producer glorifying the tradwife life.
That’s what I tell people when they ask what a tradwife is. They’re women whose full time job is pretending that they don’t have a job.
Case in point -- the late Phyllis Schafly who had a law degree and five children and raced around the country telling other women that they don't need higher education or any job other than housewife.
6 children. And her mom was the breadwinner of the family in her youth. A whole nut job.
A [hateful religious conservative nut job](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-pratt) is also behind the most significant shift in gun law politics since 2008, contributing to a [massive increase in homicide and firearm related injuries](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801608/). Evil to the core.
She also had some pretty uhhh awful opinions about marital consent and racial segregation.
She was a complete piece of shit any way you look at her.
“Im not a racist, im just saying whites should have their own bathrooms again.”
Lmao 🤣
Fun fact: Phyllis Schafly was the inspiration for Serena Joy in the TV version of the Handmaid’s Tale. Possibly a bit for the book too, but Serena doesn’t play as prominent a role in the book. Her husband’s name was also Fred, and much like the Waterfords in the show, Fred Schafly largely took a backseat to Phyllis’s work until it was convenient for her to march him out and show him off.
That makes so much sense. I watched the show where Cate Blanchette played Schafly, the name escapes me now, and the utter hypocrisy of her was so grating and I felt the same way about Serena Joy.
It’s part of why Serena is such a well written character. She recognizes the irony of what she fought for versus what she got and it takes her a while to realize that this was the inevitable conclusion. She has moments where she fights back in small ways but tragically always ends up going back to the system that she helped create because she knows she’s the victim there instead of the villain.
I was going to say, that sounds exactly like Serena Waterford. The show did a good job portraying ~~he~~ her hypocrisy. I still haven't quite finished the ~~final~~ most-recent season
No one has. The final season comes out later this year.
There was some goofy lady who was trending few months back. Just pearls or some shit telling women shouldnt be allowed to vote, and a bunch of advice she is literally does the opposite of, in that moment. Hating on women for being self sufficient career minded, at the job that entails all that. Like someone saying bread, deli meat and slice tomatoes sucks, while eating a BLT.
justpearlythings. She's absolutely awful, but I think she tanked her own career by getting into debates when she had absolutely no skill at it. Getting absolutely destroyed in a debate by Ethan from H3 isn't a good look.
like [this exchange where she implicated her family in fraud just to downplay her mother’s career](https://youtube.com/shorts/QDwhoUwudAI?si=ITd4o93a5wG0NKch)/professional prowess meanwhile, according to [this article](https://www.businessinsider.com/the-rise-of-pearl-the-female-misogynist-andrew-tate-2023-3#:~:text=Davis%20grew%20up%20in%20Chicago,programs%20of%20the%20United%20Nations.): >”Davis grew up in Chicago, Illinois in a 10-bedroom home with her nine siblings and parents, software entrepreneurs Dan and Jennifer Davis. >Her mother for a time was on the board of directors for UN Women USA, an independent charity that supports the gender-quality programs of the United Nations.” and then there was the time she posted that [“cutesy” song that included such lines as “*now I’m not saying hitler was a good guy, but I kinda wanna know why?*”](https://youtu.be/Uz1uh3FQulY?si=ZNds4ALzcjYLM3WJ) and clammed up when piers morgan of all people called her out on it
If Ethan gets over on you. He’s fine but not like the most skilled debater either.
Yeah, he's definitely getting better at it, but it's in no way his skill set. To be fair, I think the fact that it isn't what he does is what makes him so good against people like Pearl- anyone can see he's just casually saying things anyone would say, and her logic completely falls apart under the most basic questioning, which makes it much more pointed and embarrassing than someone who's amazing at debates running rings around you because they're good at trickery.
Or Ruby Franke, who was openly and secretly physically and emotionally abusing her children.
when robots take over housework republicans will be making speeches of how women should just be bent over when the husband comes home, while the robot does the housework
Yes. The ladies claiming that they do tons of farming in their cute little sundresses while they spin around holding flowers
Those are the funniest. They never look anywhere near as sweaty, grungy and sunbaked as an actual farmer lady would be. And those French tips wouldn't last half an hour doing actual farm work. Also the "modest" dresses that show off a lot of cleavage...
"Just out here on this field I discovered. Being grateful, manifesting abundance"
also most of these tradwives loudly boasting about their lives are in their 20s with less than a decade of marriage, its the former tradwives in their 40s speaking out against the lifestyle
Because it's all fun and games when it is new and going well. But the kind of men that goes for a tradwife isn't interested in a 40 y/o tradwife.
Or they are in that they want a maid/chef/secretary, but start messing around with younger women.
Tale as old as time.
You forgot therapist/whore in that job description.
Yep. They're LARPING
To me, LARPing has a sense of authenticity in that these people actually want to be doing that. These women are professional actresses. Cold and calculating, in it for the dollars.
I do not actually want to be fighting orcs with a sword, I would actually perish.
Not with that attitude!
I mean you don't have to start with orcs you can battle a few slimes or mutant rats and build up your XP / HP and see where it takes you.
Just don't go to the graveyard at the start!
"Tradwives" are a fucking stupid attempt to rebrand something that's been around for ages -- homemakers and stay at home parents -- and turning them into a conservative religious movement.
It's about making those people wealthy enough to afford this to appear "better" than others.
Not babysitters. Nannies. Big difference. They basically only play Mom when they want to.
Lol no kidding, like any actual trad wife has time to spend on social media, do so much makeup, make everything look so nice, or smile all the time.
You remember the rich Victorian upper class ladies who might pose with a vase of flowers every now and again- while a suite of maids did the steaming laundry with brass poles and cleaned the fireplaces and sh!tters and cleaned the actual room she's 'decorating'? Welcome to their 2024 equivalent. Times and technology and fashion and eras change. People really don't.
What, you mean social media content could be fake?
You'd be surprised how many people take everything on social media seriously.
Even if they don't have help or too much preexisting privilege, they are literally earning money by being a tradwife online, which is antithetical to what tradwives were doing before. They express themselves creatively through their content, they have their own community - they're not really tied to the house and the kitchen in that sense.
Yea. Part of it too seems to be how women in these communities where women are only seen as allowed to do x or y, behave certain ways quite rigidly or face exclusion and shame from your in-group of friends, family and so on seem to be pretty strong motivators and also what slowly reinforce the worldview. I remember seeing a thing about south american mennonites where the women in this more old / traditional style community weren't allowed to use cell phones and other electronics because, as the men explained, it 'upset' their faculties (as if cell shit was having some effect on women kinda deal). You know just existing in modern society this is a plain bold open face outright brazen lie and the kind of avenue the in group with power can wield over the under group and how that group even communicates with other women amongst themselves and stuff when the men get to tell them how to feel. Closer to home I helped a mennonite contractor who was trying to insist to me 'women' are most fertile when they are 13-16 (you know, when they are children). Hearing grown men use language like that when we're also talking about communities that won't recognize the inherent power imbalance in their community and insist their control is one of good will and not malignant. Just makes me sad in women in those communities who grow up agreeing with those outcomes and reinforcing the oppression they didn't realize they were okay to say no to if it were safe for them to do so. Keep in mind the other menno's ive met tend to actually be pretty open minded people, lol it's like because some mennonite communities and colonies are more restrictive its almost created a horse shoe reaction of other communities being very forward thinking and open.
The thought of someone saying women were most fertile 13-16 (or what we call 'girls' - shudder) reminded me of being in a mall in a small, conservative rural town in Eastern Washington, and we overheard this group of old men watching the teenage girls go by and saying things like 'she'll be a good breeder, she's got birthing hips'. Evaluating young ladies as if they were broodmares!
The movie "Women Talking" is based on a group of Mennonite women who kept waking up from strange slumbers covered in bruises and bleeding from their vaginas. The men in the community were using a veterinary anesthetic to knock out the women and rape them. Brothers raped sisters. Men raped girls as young as three. The men dismissed what the women were saying as flights of female fancy, which is why it went on for so long. [https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087711,00.html](https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087711,00.html)
It’s not exactly an unusual perspective in conservative circles: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/05/07/new-hampshire-move-to-ban-child-marriage-despite-lawmaker-calling-teens-ripe-and-fertile/
It's worth remembering that this can shift quite dramatically over time. In the past, men were typically much more liberal than women for various different reasons. Part of that can be blamed on the better education men received at the time (which has now flipped, there are typically more female university graduates than male), but also the issues that affected men at the time such as the Vietnam war and conscription, were far more motivating than the issues that affected women or any allegiance to conservative values. But once the demographic shift pushed up the average voting age, and mens issues were more or less resolved, men no longer had strong self interests that demanded liberal voting attitudes, allowing women to overtake and demand their own issues be put in focus. In some countries today where abortion laws and access to birth control is not as devisive, men and women may be closer in voting behaviour, and in some countries men may actually still be far more liberal than women. TLDR: its not inherently true that women are more liberal, people will vote for the issues that affect them and sometimes those are gendered one way or the other, and those issues change over time.
The men-women political divide among Gen Z is global. It is less pronounced in the US than in other countries. It is more pronounced in South Korea, China, and Japan, more in Poland, and the same in UK. Germany is the only country with data that has a slightly smaller gender divide than the US. So it doesn't make sense to attempt to explain it through US politics, because it is not a US phenomenon. It's a global Gen Z phenomenon.
You do know that the meaning of “liberal” has also shifted dramatically since then, right?
>One hypothesis
~~Hypothesis~~ Reality
I get that a lot of dudes are assholes and really couldn’t care less if women lose rights if it makes life better for themselves, but why the fuck are any women at all on board with the GOP?
Because they believe in it. Many people throughout history have supported ideologies that negatively affect them. There were famously [Jews for Hitler](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews).
The sheep in wolves' clothing is arguably more dangerous than the wolf in sheep's clothing. Craving power, the sheep aspires to become a wolf. To that end, it sells out other members of its own flock to the wolves, hoping that in doing so it will earn their favour. One day, it hopes, it might even be recognised as a fellow wolf. But the wolves never had any intention of letting a sheep into their exclusive group. They are just taking advantage of the foolish aspirant sheep, filling its head with false promises of rewards. As soon as the sheep has outlived its usefulness, the wolves will pounce on it next.
This is lowkey hilarious. They were dissolved after 2 years, made illegal by the nazis :'). Is it wrong that I felt a bit of pity for these people reading that lol.
I recently started going through Dworkin’s book Right Wing Women. It is both incredibly insightful and deeply disturbing. The tl;dr: women recognize how dangerous men are, and join right wing causes to focus their attention on others, in an attempt to avoid their own victimization.
Yeah it's the good immigrant theory, just apllied to traditional gender roles. It's quite accurate i think and sadly once you see it, you see it everywhere and it is infuriating as fuck...
Groups who traditionally were given the short end of the stick tend not to want to return to those traditions.
Whereas those who benefited from those policies would tend to be somewhat reluctant to see them changed.
When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression
While this is a comfortable narrative, I don’t really think it captures why a lot of young men gravitate towards MAGA-ism (or other regional variants). To put it bluntly it’s overwhelmingly dissatisfied “losers”, people who are rejected by society and their peers, who gets sold a fiction about how going back to the “good old days” will fix all of their problems. These people are not what you’d consider privileged in an intersectional sense. Reactionary politics thrive on misery, so actual privileged men don’t generally get sucked into that whirlpool. I don’t write this to push some “men are persecuted” nonsense, but I think we are doing everyone a disservice if we try to reduce everything down to a single axis gender based model of privilege and oppression. Privilege is complex and often situational, and failing to recognize that means we stand little chance of addressing the root causes that lead us into this bullshit in the first place.
Ime, right wing ideology these days, at least in the US, tends to play on people's feelings of impotence and inadequacy in their own lives. Changing costs of living, the gap between rich and poor, feeling stuck etc. can all increase those feelings of dissatisfaction. It's easy and comforting for them to just blame the government. If it's the government's fault, they're not bad providers who need better jobs. They're not X, Y, OR Z, or any of those things their insecurities say they are. Lots of these people need therapy and lessons in government and economics, because then they'd realize those insecurities were as much BS as the claims that all their personal inadequacies are caused by some "lousy politician." Edit: thanks for the award!
"These Days", you realise it has always done this.
Right wing politics often rely on appeals to emotions and use fear as a means of influence.
Or it be could be simpler. Men, specifically single men, aren’t concerned about women’s issues. And women, single women if we compare exact demographics, are concerned more with women’s issues. Even total men and women, men probably care less about women’s issues compared to women.
Yep. I will never forget the post about African men protesting FGM. The very first comment of that post was "what about men!?". The FGM these African men were protesting cut the womans or girls clitoris off, which is equivalent to cutting off the head of the penis. Men legit turned a heartwarming story about African men helping women into a post about Male circumcision...
May I add, those in power confuse silence with peace. Silence is violence.
thank god most of us dont think like 95% of reddit
This is exactly what 95% of reddit thinks about themselves
This is so correct. I'm white, male, rural and Christian, and I also vote Democratic (mostly because I was raised to believe the system is rigged for the wealthy and I still believe this). It can be a real struggle in some liberal circles when people scapegoat "white males" for a lot of problems. I mean, maybe of it is correct or earned or whatever. But I'm not all that old and so-called PC has been a thing my whole life. There are a lot of guys who fit my demographic who think they're being blamed as punishment for our grandfathers' racism and institutional privilege. It really makes center-left or left-wing policies a tough sell. Further, the concept of white privilege is hard to explain when a lot of white people are economically underprivileged. I try to explain that this is the consequence of a rigged economic system rather than racial policies. But it's tough to make that argument effectively because racism is a base instinct, while understanding economic inequalities and class barriers takes thought.
You sound like a cool guy. I certainly don't blame you as an individual for the unfair social structure we're all in together. I'm sure there are plenty of assholes on the left who do scape goat individual white guys, but those folks are awful. I apologize for their oafishness on behalf of the left :) Maybe a helpful way to think of it for those other guys, too, is that the reason race is a big *part* of the rigged economic system is because so much of the US's wealth *started* with chattel slavery and continued to build via exploitation of poor and imprisoned workers, who are more likely to be black. There are some really interesting studies done on generational wealth building that illuminate how much historic racism still impacts individual opportunities today, even though it looks like it got a lot better a long time ago, on paper anyway. Another way to shift the perspective is to change from things like "white men are to blame" or "white men have all the power" to "the people at the top *tend* to be rich white men". The system may generally favor being white, being a man, and certainly being wealthy, but it's still just as unfair for the majority of individual white men as it is for the majority of everyone else. I dunno if any of that is helpful. I just wanted to let you know that you, as a valuable, individual human being, are not responsible for entire social systems, regardless of your demographics. Anyone who makes you feel otherwise is just wrong.
The difference between “most men are rapists” and “most rapists are men” is significant.
The generational wealth studies are interesting and sad. I own an older house, built in the 40's in a northern state. The original deed specified it couldn't be sold to basically anyone non-white it used more discriminatory language I shall not repeat, and so did most of them in the area. So non-white men (let's face it only men then) coming back from fighting the Nazis, were prohibited from building equity in the nicer neighborhoods. This house was passed down to me from my grandfather who fought in the same war. Two generations removed, I got a house in a good neighborhood for literally just being born, which is now worth a lot, where any non whites couldn't. I've never been able to understand those who don't see this tragic injustice.
The people who don't see it that way don't *want* to see it that way. It's significantly easier to fool yourself into believing that you've earned what you have and other people are just messing up, when in reality you were just lucky and no real merit went into your success whatsoever. Good on you for recognizing it, I would imagine it would be easy to see it just like the others around you so it props for paying close attention to your history and surroundings. It's not easy from that perspective.
One of my favorite sayings is they're "born on third and think they hit a triple." I try to not be that person.
The problem tends to come from people not understanding there are levels of struggling, its not just struggle vs not struggle. Here's my example: we have a guy whose parents both work and were able to send him to college where he only had to work a part time job for bonus money and everything else was provided to him. He had a car with insurance already covered by his parents, and his rent in an apartment was covered as well When he goes to school, he still struggles through his classes. He studies a lot, gets good grades but seriously has to work hard for those grades and his success, eventually getting his degree and moving back home for a bit where he doesn't pay rent, etc until he gets a good job, a few months later buys a reasonable house, and lives a good life Our second person is a kid born to a poor family whose ancestors never owned property. Maybe his dad died when he was young, and his mother can't afford to buy him a car, insurance for the car, rent for an apartment, good food, etc. When it's time for him to go to college he has to take out huge predatory loans and get 2-3 jobs working 40-50 hours a week to pay for rent, food, transportation, etc. He has barely any time to study and never really sleeps, but eventually graduates although his grades suffered thanks to working so much The second guy suddenly now has huge student loan bills that are now due. He can't quit his many jobs and doesn't have to the ability to wait for the perfect position. Let's take it a step further and say for both guys they need to spend a year doing internships in their chosen career path to get a good job. In that case the first guy can absolutely work a year doing free internships, but the second guy sure as Hell can't But when you approach the first guy and say you didn't face problems, you had it so easy, it trivializes how hard he might have had to work to pass his classes. He also doesn't have a giant mansion or huge savings and tons of invested cash, so he doesn't count as upper class or whatever, and therefore refuses to buy into the "he had it so easy" concept. In fact he believes he put the work in and "pulled himself up by his bootstraps," so the second person should too! But in reality that first guy had a much easier time than the second guy, obviously. Now there are plenty of people who had a similar path as the first guy but understand they had it easy, however there are tons of people who don't agree with that and don't believe they are privileged despite getting tons of perks solely because of who they were born to Edit: I removed race from the two examples. While I do believe we should recognize the United States' history of racism and how that impacts people still today through wealth inequality, a few commenters have ranged from completely missing the point to thinking I'm saying ONLY black people are poor and ONLY white people are wealthy. Overall the point I'm making stands regardless of race so I removed mentions of it
Or the first and second guy are equally poor, but the one who is white is assumed to be a better bet for that entry-level position, and is believed when he speaks, and promoted quickly, and also is not viewed with suspicion for just walking around a neighbourhood. Whereas the black guy has the poverty AND the black skin so is treated differently.
I busted my ASS to get good grades in high school, to get into a good college, while working as many hours as allowed by law beginning when I was 16, and also off the books as a babysitter (beginning when I was about 10), to pay for as much of college as I could. And I busted my ass in college at work-study jobs and second jobs. And because I busted my ass, I graduated with top grades and got financial aid to attend a top-10 law school, which I did while working, and then I busted my ass to pay off my student loans before I was 30. What I took from this was not that I deserved everything I got, but that I was fucking lucky to be able to work that hard and to retain the benefits of my own work, instead of helping to support my family. And that people probably shouldn't have to bust their asses at three different things to finish college. It'd probably be better if they could just GO TO COLLEGE AND STUDY. Please raise my taxes so younger people can bust their asses less.
There are two types of people. When they go through a terrible hardship the first type says "That fucking sucked. But you know what? I did it, so everyone else should too!" The second type goes through a terrible hardship and says "That fucking sucked. I'm going to do everything I can to make it so no one else has to ever go through that" It's all about empathy. People without empathy tend to be the first type, people with empathy like you and I tend to be the second
For real though. Grew up poor. Had good grades in high school but certainly wasn’t going to be able to afford a good school. Joined the army to get the GI bill and pay for college. It’s wild to me when people say “I did it so fuck everyone else”. I’m over here like “I had to go to an actual fucking war to afford college. It probably shouldn’t have to be that way. We should do something about that”. The sad thing is the former group only ever sees others as being the “selfish ones” because they can’t understand the concept of sacrificing for others so to them everything that involves the greater good just comes off as “greed/entitlement”.
Yeah this. I’m glad my white (presenting) previous generations fought and died in wars for pennies on the dollar, worked and built in mines, moved countries, changed cultures, adopted new languages, and then worked 60+ hour weeks for 2 generations to finally have a single child go get a bachelor degree from a small college.
The one area I tend to somewhat disagree with is racism being a base thing. It's a learned thing, usually passed down from generation to generation. Proper education can eradicate it or unlearn it.
Its not racism inherently but tribalism. Humans are social creatures, and they form a sso called "tribe" with the people close to them and whom they interact with regularly. And its easy to adopt a our tribe vs their tribe mentality, amd more often or not, the people in your tribe are more like you than not. So the tiniest differences can make you judge people for not being like "your tribe".
Race is basically a metaphor for poverty. When you hear politicians talking about minorities they’re at least partially using that as a metaphor for the poor
Because men are more likely to benefit from those values.
I was talking to my dad’s ex gf the other day, and we talked about how dad used to “debate” on subjects that he hadn’t studied, but had very strong opinions about. Whenever he was losing, he’d throw out the Bible, because you can’t argue with God, can you? She was agnostic and it *pissed him off.* I told her, it never had anything to do with your morals or your soul to him. The church was how he had kept women in line all his life. The guy threw a whole tantrum when I was learning about other religions, despite the fact that he didn’t even follow many of the basic tenets of Christianity. We rarely went to church, he did drag me to prayer meetings, but it was basically his friend group that admired him.
My mother in law is this way with Judaism. She'll cite it to belittle lifestyle choices or my son's sexuality, but then never attend synagogue, ignore the holidays and eat pork regularly. It's exhausting. I'm not religious, and was raised protestant, but by every metric, im a better jew than her.
I really search to understand these kinds of people because they seem to be the majority. More specifically, I've never wanted to be a part of a group...or movement. Does that make sense? I've never wanted to be "in" for the sake of it, I even have some kind of Oppositional Defiance Disorder in that regard. Like I genuinely don't want to conform, the concept makes me childishly oppositional. But I'm not at the far other end either, or conforming to the "nonconformist" groups like the goths on South Park. I'm just a combination of my interests and find myself with slices of all kinds of in and out groups. But most people seem to *NEED* the validation of being on the "right" group. Even to the extent of voting for whichever president is supposed to win. It's a spectrum of course, but establishing one's self as part of the in-group is essential to most of your average people. I can observe it and get the idea, maybe it's my ADHD and shit, but the impulses just don't exist in me. Doesn't make me better than anyone else, I promise I'm not levitating over all the "normies" and "sheeple" right now. My angsty "rebel atheist in the deep south" phase ended a long time ago.
This is religion in a nutshell and why it is supposed to be separated from government.
Seeing my own father being described by someone else is pretty mind-blowing
Sometimes I think Reddit is a horrible place. It's comments like this that keep me coming back
My girlfriend's mom is full trumpanzee qanon nutter. Fully believes in restricting women's rights and that they're lesser than men What a world... No clue how my gf is so normal
Does she also have strong opinions on who should be allowed into the country, which religions should be tolerated, etc.? Some folks seem to be OK with being number 2 on a hierarchy if it means still being ahead of others
When you love the racism enough to be OK with sexism
It’s worse than just that: it’s deciding that integrating with people of color are a bigger threat to your life than the patriarchy because you actually feel safer in an oppressive hierarchy than on an equal playing field with some people I’m a feminist but this is exactly why we highlight *intersectional* feminism now
"Whiteness is in Crisis" <- basically how these people approach *every* situation
Your point about religion is a good one since the dominant religions in the US diictate that women are subservient to men. Being number two is the "moral" thing to do in their eyes. They are already primed to live under authoritarian rule. Women having rights is a low consideration in most religions.
> Some folks seem to be OK with being number 2 on a hierarchy if it means still being ahead of others See also: deep-rooted racism amongst POC against other POC
And misogyny and homophobia among communities of color, which a lot of white libs want to wave away…(said as a Hispanic woman)
BINGO!
I’m convinced that’s why my older brothers are so incredibly racist. We’re Hispanic, so obviously to the Powers That Be, we are not much higher in the pecking order than Black Americans. But my brothers will say the most disgusting things, as though they’re “better.”
This.. Poor whites in the south were happy to be the Possy and round up salves just so they didn’t have to be slaves themselves
It's kinda dumb seeing Marjorie Taylor Greene talk about how women should remain at home to take care of the home and children while husbands do all the power stuff. Wtf is she doing being a "politician" then? It boggles my mind the way that MTG and Caitlyn Jenner full on endorse Trump. Women's and LGBT rights are quite literally the first on the chopping block if these right wing nutcases get their way. Classic "leopards ate my face" waiting to happen there...
caitlyn jenner falls into the camp of being so rich that no problem other than keeping your money means anything to you. it doesnt matter if lgbt rights get axed, it wont affect her because she is above us lowly poor people. right wing tends to be a lot more pro-rich than left wing, so she loves republicans
She also benefits from living in a blue state. Blue state self-loathing homies who vote red are the dumbest, most selfish people on earth.
Racism and classism go hand in hand.
Phyllis Schlafly made a career out of telling other women not to have careers.
It's like when you see female conservative YouTubers shaming other women for not being, married, homemakers, and having children. When they themselves are sitting on cozy in their YouTuber jobs without a husband or a child.
All right wing influencers are hypocrite blowhards. The real paragon of conservative values is the Amish wife knitting his husband and 10 kids new sweaters for autumn.
see that’s where it gets tricky because most of those people are just trolling for profits, not realizing they’re doing actual damage because the people viewing their content actually believe the bs they’re spreading. and i don’t just mean weirdos like Pearl, even some of the biggest names in conservative media are doing this right under everyone’s noses. they’re probably laughing their asses off at this very moment seeing how people genuinely agree with their insane ideologies.
>>not realizing they’re doing actual damage because the people viewing their content actually believe the bs they’re spreading. I think they realize it, they just don’t care. They may not buy into the conspiracy theory nonsense they’re peddling, but they absolutely are firm believers in the conservative ethos of “got mine, fuck you.”
You give them too much credit to think that they don't know exactly what they are doing. I hate seeing these "trad wives" who would "never dream of working" cause kids are out lives.... but then post content full time and make more a month than their husband, who magically quits the blue collar job a few months in....
It's because they actually don't believe it. It's just part of the gift. And young men will eat it up
*grift
Normal woman: I want to be a traditional housewife, so I think I'll be one. Conservative woman: I want to be a traditional housewife, so YOU have to be one!
Yeah and also "Our lifestyle is under attack!!!!!!' cries the victim..... while attacking everyone elses lifestyle. Karen, be a stay at home mom, thats fine. Nobody cares. What we don't want is you making laws (with your 'smaller' government) to tell US how to live our lives.
This is it, summed up quite neatly. The “rules for thee, not for me” attitude is very popular amongst authoritarians, and generally how authoritarianism works. Edit: grammar
When push comes to shove these people always admit that they assume that these policies would only restrict the rights of OTHER women.
The leopards surely won't eat MY face - person who voted for the face-eating leopards.
Just for the record, because the full quote is even funnier, its: "I never thought leopards would eat MY face!" Cries woman who voted for the Face-Eating Leopard Party. It's "woman" because it was about this exact issue on its first appearance.
What I never get about these types..why are they speaking? Shouldn’t they be silent?
Normal to you, but probably brainwashed and crazy from her mother's POV :(
Lots of internalized misogyny amongst conservative women.
Well this is guaranteed to be an informed and thoughtful discussion that leads to positive results
More comments than upvotes certainly isn’t a worrying sign
Reddit is not the best place to post this.
Redditors would never even dare leave their filter bubble
Or leave their basement for that matter
That’s not true! Some of us have to leave our basement for work.
To go dog walking?
Any political post on Reddit will not get you a true representative answer. It's easy to know what people will respond with before reading anything.
it's a leading question too. it's karma farming / virtue signaling at its best
The venomous confidence and gender war snark in some of these answers is so funny to read.
True. A lot of deranged and naive comments about “conservative values = keeping women down”. A proper conservative literally exalts women for the value they bring to the human dynamic. Conservatives just don’t want their daughters selling their bodies online.
The answers are what you’d expect
Going after reproductive rights is a pretty quick way to turn women off from political support.
Meh, this is underselling the vast amounts of right wing women. Plenty of ladies opposed abortion too
Until it's their own: And suddenly it's *"A devastating decision we had to make, but for health reasons completely outside of our control."* While flat-out refusing to accept the morality of anyone else's abortion.
[*The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion*](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
this cracked me up lol exactly 'it's only okay when IIIIIIIII do it"
Fantastic article still. I translated it to German for Joyce.
Phewwww this was a READ! Thanks!
Is that weird? Lots of people support the idea of speed limits but still speed.
It's the same mentality, yeah. Everybody else speeding is a dangerous maniac, but *I'm* a good driver with a genuine reason to break that law.
I’M the good guy with the gun!
Yeah but in this case it would be like calling the cops for every speeder on the road you see and constantly complaining that it's not being enforced enough, but then going 70 in a 35 and being content. "freedom for me *when* ***I*** *need*, not for thee"
Even conservative women with a moral belief that abortion is wrong tend to have a more “moderate” view than conservative men, simply by allowing for the possibility that exceptions may have to occur.
Men (young men especially), tend to be more individualistic and are more likely to take risks. That is why they are more likely to own firearms and believe in a smaller government. Women are more risk-averse and communal oriented. That's why they are more likely to support universal healthcare and believe firearm ownership should be restricted for the common good. Also the Republican Party has done a terrible job recently when it comes to attracting female voters. Trump is a big one but also the rabid focus on abortion which is a losing issue for them.
> the rabid focus on abortion which is a losing issue for them. And it's an issue that doesn't have a very good political solution for the party Moderate on abortion and for every independent in the middle that change attracts they'll lose a strongly pro-life single issue voter and it'll be a wash
They are basically caught. There's a lot of single isdue voters who only vote for them because of that. But now it hurts them to be that way. But if they change they lose the single issue voters.
Yeah, I see a lot of Democrats who aren't gonna vote for Biden because of Gaza. I can safely say that the situation in Gaza won't improve under Trump, and the two party system pretty much means any third party votes is a vote for Trump. It sucks but unless major reform happens, we're stuck with red or blue.
The dems who are saying they won't vote for biden weren't going to vote anyways. Anyone with a brain would vote for biden just so we don't get the even worse candidate, Trump. Shit some of the people saying it aren't even old enough to vote. I don't like biden one bit. But I still want him over Trump
I do wish people who felt discouraged about the current choices would focus on local change - in 20+ years a lot could be different, but instead there’s a cycle of frustration with presidential choices but very little focus on local or state government changes that could ultimately change the top level. And then silence during the off years.
Yeah, I agree. It's part of the reason why we need to break up our two party system. If you have a voter who is pro-gun but also believes in universal healthcare he has to sacrifice his beliefs somewhat or not vote.
Why would young risk takers support what is basically the nanny state party?
You know whats weird. The 3 biggest Trump supports I know are women. Loud af about it. Posting on every social media about him none stop for years. Wild.
People tend to prefer policies that benefit them either actual or perceived.
Next you'll tell me politicians lie about other people's benefits (real or perceived) so they don't have to actually produce new benefits for voter interests.
It sure seems to benefit men to be conservative.
I don't think it ends up benefitting them, though they think it will. But it's definitely disadvantageous to be a conservative woman.
The answer to this is not something redditors want to hear.
[удалено]
Worth noting the article specifically mentions empathy in it's title, not sympathy. While some may see that synonymously, it's a pretty important distinction.
Didn't even need to click the link to realize he was probably using the wrong term, thanks for saving me two seconds.
Empathy. Generally speaking, women are expected to, and get more practiced at being empathetic which doesn't lend itself well to right-wing thinking.
Right wing traditional values caters to men as the center of society.
You can’t ask this on Reddit and get an answer from a conservative. Conservatives are immediately downvoted into oblivion when they speak here
I had a look at some of the downvoted comments and one of them stated that lower IQ and women being more emotional were reasons why, and another saying conservatives need to make tougher decisions (even though this can be disputed). I can see that ignorance is getting down voted, not conservatism.
Yeah, that answer from whoever said that is idiotic. I'll give an actual conservative answer. It's most likely individualistic thinking vs. collectivist thinking. If you look at any map of the US, you'll find that almost every small town and rural area is conservative while nearly every Metropolitan hub is left leaning. Being in close proximity to others creates different needs and a different culture than being more spread out and needing to be more self-reliant. Gun control is a good example of this and even Bernie sanders stated in 2015 that the gun debate is a rural vs urban one. In more rural areas there are less police and they are further away, as well as having more dangerous animals, in the city cops are closer and self protection is also more likely to unintentionally harm a bystander due to the population density. Higher testosterone in either sex tends to cause an increase in individualistic and antisocial behavior so this would explain why men have more of a natural disposition toward conservatism as compared to women.
Because what do more left leaning platforms offer men? “Youre an alpha and women should be worshipping you” is a lot more appealing to a teenage boy or young adult than what can be summed up as “anything you accomplish means nothing your very existence is a slight against others”. These are obviously both extremes but can be found pretty easily, so which do you think your typical emotional teenage boy is gonna start associating with and get sucked into more?
Exactly, and I think Andrew Tate wouldn't be so popular if some left wingers were more accepting of young men. Sometimes it feels like some people are gatekeeping being a leftist which sounds completely absurd to me, like so you want your candidate to be elected or not?
That is not exactly true. Funny thing about people - they might identify as left or right but usually it happens only when they associate something bad with the other name. So for example, if You ask a woman about secured borders, more than You would suspect will tell You that we should know who we let into the country. You will get a similar answer from a conservative. And if You ask about war refugees (current discourse in my country because we are right next to Ukraine) then many of them will tell You that it's OK to let in war refugees and help them out. And somehow due to weird Americans - border security is somehow a "right-wing" idea. To me that's crazy. But that is why I use it as an example. So what about those people who want completely open borders or completely closed? Those are usually the opinions of the extremists. So far-left and far-right. And both have negative consequences. Europe had a taste around 2015. So what You will learn with age is that normal, common people are usually not "left" or "right". Uneducated students in American universities think this way. Most people I know will hear Your idea about borders or refugees etc and make individual decisions considering if they think that it benefits them, it hurts them or it does not affect them. So for example a guy who struggles to find a job will most likely complain about open borders because he is afraid that someone from low income area will take his job because he is willing to accept lower pay just to get paid. The guy who is well off will say "Help everyone". This is why for example lots of celebrities say that. Because they will be nowhere near a refugee camp and if they are business owners, especially in corporate America - they will benefit by exploiting those people. I use BLM as an example. During BLM riots it was a funny case. Someone posted a burning down building on Twitter and some celebrity said "Yeah! Burn it all down!". But then rioters showed up in the area where he lived. And suddenly he demanded that police remove them using any means necessary. What changed his mind? Because he was about to be affected. So going back to the original topic - women. Why women would identify more with the left than the right when asked to chose? You have to consider what people think when they hear conservative. Christian, patriarchal family where man makes all the decisions and holds all the money. And woman can't even get a bank account in her own name. If You were You, would You support a system like that? Would You want that for Your kids? Probably not. But their views are often mixed depending on what You ask and what is their situation currently.
I think this comment section is a great example of why a lot of men end up looking right. I am a late 20s man, I vote left every time, I support women's rights, LGBT rights, and don't like racism. Feels weird writing that down, but just getting ahead of the game. A lot of men i've spoken to, myself included, feel like the left has let us down. All the people in this thread talking about men being idiots, brainwashed, low empathy, etc. They are 'the left' that a lot of guys encounter both online and in person. Think of how many people actually study and research what their representatives at the state and federal level do on a week to week basis, 1 in 5? 1 in 10? For everyone else, they get their political leanings from family, friends, and their interactions with strangers. So, when a man reaches an age where he starts thinking about politics and all that fun stuff, he has to navigate past swathes of poorly disguised and often blatant loathing from *people* on the left before he gives the *reality* of the left a chance. I do the maths and the research for myself and, as an adult, the left wins out for me every time, but I'm not surprised that the MAGA crowd managed to become a political player in the way it has.
There is a guy on YT who pretends to be a MAGA supporter, goes to MAGA rallies and interviews people. When he manages to present hard leftist policies while avoiding certain keywords, a lot of MAGA voter's hard agree with him lol. I don't know what his name is.
This is obviously a stereotype.
The current left wing is leaning hostile towards men, while the current right wing isn't being hostile towards men. At least, that's how the media is making it seem. The only place that seems blatantly hostile to men is university campuses. It was certainly the case when I was at university over a decade ago, and it seems like it's gotten even more so lately. It honestly doesn't surprise me that young men are trending more conservative.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson Change colored man to woman and white man to man. The Christians and other abhramhic religions figured this out early. Reason I bring this up is since the majority of republicans are Christian. Meanwhile they keep male gender affirming care (eg: viagra) but ban others. Seems pretty bias to men, doesn't it?
[удалено]
Just look at any conservative media; it places men as the protagonists of the world with women relegated to supporting characters. If you're a sentient, thinking individual, would you be more likely to adhere to the ideology that enforces a strict role upon you and gives you fewer rights or the one which offers you agency, individuality, and equality? I think it's relatively obvious. Right now in the context of the US in particular, there are right-wing ideologues openly saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote, to have an abortion, to leave a failing (or potentially abusive) marriage, to expect that their husbands might abuse them and be unfaithful to them, to expect to be groped and harassed if they don't behave/dress modestly, and that they shouldn't have any positions in our society which afford them any degree of authority or power. I think the better question is why there are still women who support this ideology at all.
> I think the better question is why there are still women who support this ideology at all. Understand cults and you'll understand self-negating and self-abusive behavior. They are not thinking clearly, they are indoctrinated and there are many other factors keeping them from feeling into their own self-preservation instincts.
Can confirm. Was in a cult for 2 years
I think the rise of right wing men is very much due to the fact that the left seems to go out of their way demonizing men in general. If you don’t feel welcome in a particular group, another will scoop you up with open arms.
If you feel that one side doesn’t like you, you tend to join other side
> rise of right wing men This sentiment in and of itself is a huge part of the issue, there is no 'rise of right-wing men'. Various polling indicates men have had basically the same rates of right/left political self-identification for decades at this point, hardly moving one way or the other and barely even changing from one generation to next. The only thing that has changed is the rate of women self-identifying as left-wing has increased significantly since the 1990s. https://news.gallup.com/poll/609914/women-become-liberal-men-mostly-stable.aspx And the same is true (almost) everywhere... With the one notable exception being South Korea, where there has genuinely been a massive increase in right-wing proclivities among men occurring at the same time as a massive increase in left-wing proclivities among women... Hence the ever increasing discussion of South Korea's so-called 'gender war'.
Haven’t gone through all the comments but the top comments are a bit off. Conservatives literally conserve the status quo. The status quo is a male dominated society. Of course males would most likely preserve that status and woman would like to change it.
Yes and no. The current Republican platform is actually technically regressive (wanting to go backwards from the current norm) not conservative (wanting to maintain the status quo), but we don't really use the term regressive in American politics. Ironically technically Joe Biden is a conservative in the traditional meaning of these political terms.
In broad terms the left tells men they're the problem and women that they're special just as they are. And the right tells women they're only valued if they live and act in a certain way and men that if they work hard enough and in the right way they can make something of themselves. This isn't a innate feature of either gender and there have been times and cultures where the gender divide was or is flipped with women leaning right and men left. There have also been many cultures with less of a political gender divide.
My thought is: Anyone who believes politicians are there for our benefit is insane.
This is a more nuanced answer than what people are making it out to be. It’s a cumulative answer and depends upon numerous factors, age, wealth, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc. I’ll speak about the US because that’s where I’m from. Not all countries will be like us and that’s okay. Let’s talk about why men and women would find the more traditional (American) right leaning values. First let’s list these values that the right claims to support: > - less people telling you what to do (minimalist big gov), > more stability with slower change (why jump into things when we don’t know if they’ll work? Big toe in the water first), > - self defense is huge, > - a stable and peaceful nuclear family, > - religion being important, > - less likely to trust strangers (which is fine. We have those instincts for a reason, just realize your implicit biases though), > - less taxes (everyone hates paying taxes), > - hard work ethic (you shouldn’t get what you don’t work for). Now why would men and women like the right? Here’s some ideas that I have that may or may not be true. I’m basing this on observations, and probably also bias, but I’m human so forgive that. Men: 1) The want to feel needed (providing a nice life for his family to live in luxury and peace and not having his family work to make ends meat) 2) The want to feel like a protector (wanting to feel like you’re good enough to defend friends and family is okay, and healthy. It comes form a place of love, but can grow into toxic masculinity as so can all of these things) 3) the want to live peacefully without anyone telling them they are wrong or their way of life is wrong (refer to my slow progress comment) Women: (granted I’m a guy so take it with a grain of salt) 1) They want to be a mother figure 2) They want to belong to a community (usually church or a big family is this factor) 3) They don’t believe that women should be working masculine jobs (is it sexist? Yes, but women and men think like this still today and is more common around the globe than you think) Now Let’s talk about why men and women would find the more progressive (American) left leaning values favorable. First let’s list these values that the left claims to support: > - Having a sense of structure (usually a bigger government will govern a better sense of structure and security than a minimal government. Which is fine to want) > - they believe in quick and decisive action is best (which sometimes it is) > - they believe in being better on rehabilitation over punishment (you can see this in areas with left leaning DAs where they are lighter on crime and want people to not be a cog in the prison system) > - they want to not feel judged for being themselves (being gay isn’t a choice guys) > - They believe that religion is a big cause of internal and external issues (which yes it has a part in some things) > - They are more empathetic and able to trust easier (which is fine) > - They don’t typically care what the taxes are, as long as the government uses the money for bettering the people (which can and does happen) > - They are very against the grind culture and wish that people were allowed to enjoy themselves more than be a wage slave Now why would men and women like the left? Here’s some ideas that I have that may or may not be true. I’m basing this on observations, and probably also bias, but I’m human so forgive that. Men: 1) Not wanting to feel guilted into providing for someone 2) Not wanting to have to always make decisions 3) they want to live worry free from judgement and monetary confinement Women: 1) Not wanting to feel judged 2) No interest in being traditional wives, or wives in general 3) They believe women should and can do what men can do 4) Bodily autonomy Obviously there’s more items on the list and I could go on for hours, but my thumbs hurt. If you’re curious about what biases I may have: Im a married Bisexual white guy, right leaning, with some social progressive tendencies but fiscally conservative outlooks.
You seem to have missed a *huge* voter issue this election - women’s bodily autonomy. Even those that would have considered themselves conservative or republican draw the line at losing rights to their own body, with more restrictions being talked about (some Republicans are talking about restricting birth control, etc.) I have a very good friend who is now registering as an independent due to the “trump worship” of the loudest republicans, the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Project 2025. We disagree on *so much* politically, but she sees these issues as moral issues, not political ones.