Young women across Western Europe and Canada are more left wing than their male counterparts, according to new research I carried out that also shows among older voters women more likely to be right wing than men.
We already know that younger people are often more likely to vote for left-wing parties than their older peers, but it seems this trend is particularly pronounced among women. Younger women are the most left wing in their voting habits and older women the most right wing when we compared voters by age and gender. This is shown in a study using data on over 40,000 people from the World Values Survey/European Values Study in Western Europe and Canada, 1989-2014.
This trend is summarised in the graph below. Negative numbers indicate more men voting for a left-wing party in a given country. Positive numbers indicate more women voting for a left-wing party. In almost all countries, women born after 1955 are more likely to vote for left-wing parties than men of the same age group. Conversely, in many countries, women born before 1955 are less likely to vote for left-wing parties than their male peers.
How people vote. Author provided
The research also showed that the gender gap in left-wing voting became larger for each new birth cohort. So, for example, the difference between women and men in left-wing voting was even greater for those born 1975-85 than it was for those born 1965-75. This suggests that over time we should expect women to become more and more left wing relative to men, as younger, more left-wing cohorts of women replace older, more right-wing cohorts in the population.
A woman takes part in a march for the rights of the unborn in Poland.
The analysis shows that the decline of religiosity is crucial to explaining the trend. Older women are more religious and their religiosity is also more important for their vote choice compared to younger women. Religious voters are more likely to hold conservative social values and attachments to religious parties. This means that older women are more likely to vote for parties on the right – especially Christian Democrat parties. Similarly, they are less likely to vote for parties on the left.
On the other hand, younger women tend to have a stronger preference for redistribution and see a larger role for the state compared to men. They vote for left-wing parties in line with these preferences. Older women are also more left wing in their economic policy preferences compared to men, but their greater religiosity trumps these preferences when it comes to their vote choice.
Chasing the ‘female vote’
Parties often make particular efforts to appeal to “women voters” when campaigning. However, this analysis shows that there are considerable differences between younger and older women in their voting preferences. Appealing to the “women’s vote” might make less sense than, say, appealing to young women or older women.
This is a challenge for both left- and right-wing parties. Conservative and Christian democratic parties have historically had strong support among religious women, who are concentrated in older generations. However, this is now a cause for concern. Although older voters are more likely to turn out to vote than younger voters, the religious older generations are also becoming a smaller proportion of European electorates through generational replacement. Older generations die out and are replaced with new, secular ones. With an ageing support base and a decline in religiosity especially for women, Conservative or Christian democratic parties may no longer be able to rely on their traditional positions or messages.
Left-wing parties, especially Social democratic ones, need to think about whether their younger women supporters will stick with them as they age. If they do, this perhaps offers hope for these parties. As their traditional support base of the working class declines in size, they might find a new one in the form of younger cohorts of women.
However, in the intervening period, these left-wing parties will face a challenge of balancing the different values and priorities of their traditional base – older, working-class men – and their new supporters – younger cohorts of women. Both left-wing and right-wing parties may have to start reexamining how they appeal to female voters.
Rosalind Shorrocks, is a Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Such a sexist sentiment cannot be real since women are a class, and they are also no different from men.
The fairer sex is on average more religious and has a higher tendency to conform to group pressure. Since the cultural mainstream of West is liberal, and for some social justice is taking a religious role, I suspect the young women of today will stay left-wing as they age. Perhaps our culture will eventually change, and young women of 2040 will once again be religious in the traditional sense, but that’s just worthless speculation about the future. Even then we’d have plenty of social justice grannies too old to change their ways, just as hectoring and holier-than-thou as the old church ladies.
It has been made clear that if you are an older woman, especially of the paler variety, leftists don’t value you and wish you would just die. They say this on a a daily basis. There are entire sets of memes that go around mocking women for being older and therefore being stupid or “wanting to speak to the manager”, which I suppose is an experience many young people have working in the service industry because they give poor service. So it should come as no surprise that the older a woman gets, the more likely she is to drift away from a movement that has decided she should – literally – “just die already”.
This just confirms the widespread finding in political science that the rise of the welfare state is almost entirely driven by the legalization and more widespread encouragement of female voting. Why should women worry about keeping up their appearance, or being a good cook, or making themselves available for sex when they don’t feel like it just to get or keep a breadwinner/strong man around when they can instead simply vote Left to ensure that Uncle Sam (or equivalent in other countries) will provide “free” sustenance and the physical protection that men have traditionally supplied. Of course men as the physically stronger sex and the dominant creators of economic surplus are still on the hook to pay for and protect women, its just that they now increasingly do it as taxpayers or members of the military/police rather than primarily as husbands, fathers, or sons. This new arrangement may be a good deal for a lot of women, but the question is how long the “maker” men will be willing to toil hard to support the “taker” women who vote Left in order to avoid the obligation of providing men with the benefits of female companionship and traditional family life.
Especially when those “maker” men are not only getting any, but have to pay for the bastard offspring of the small number of alpha males who are. Not to mention the criminalization of their efforts to do so.
But… but… but the future is female. Women are figuring out how to perform or supplant all the traditional roles of men, and discard their female roles to a large extent, so men will become superfluous. When the living, generational memory of maleness disappears, the process will be complete– provided women figure it all out and make it work without our help.
@E. Olson
I don’t think the welfare state has had the effects you describe because women have never, in the entire history of the human race, acted the way you describe. You are buying into a fairly recent myth which probably started in the Victorian era, the myth that women don’t actually like men or find them attractive, and that all the things they do for men are done for the purpose of extracting economic support from men. It’s a ridiculous sociological just-so-story.
The reason women make themselves attractive is because they like to. They are primarily competing with other women, not trying to attract men. The existance of”lipstick lesbians” demonstrates that even women with no interest in attracting men care about their looks.
The reason that women make themselves available for sex is because they love sex and it feels awesome. The idea that women hate sex and are just putting up with it for the sake of their husband may be true for a small minority of troubled relationships, but isn’t true the bulk of the time.
The idea that women vote for the welfare state so they won’t need husbands to care for them is based on the myth that people vote based on their self interest. This is patently untrue, people vote based on what they think is best for the country. The tendency of women to support the welfare state can be explained entirely by women being (on average) slightly more caring and nurturing than men.
Why do people persist in spreading this nonsense. Have you ever interacted with women? None of them talk or think like that!
Sorry Ghatanathoah, but your statements are not backed by any significant research. Women have always been reliant on men to take care of them, but the welfare state has offered an alternative that they vote for much more than men, particularly if they are young and single. As the article above notes, older and married women become less Leftist, which is widely attributed to lower attractiveness of redistribution policies when such policies would take money away from her own family. The 2012 Obama campaign famously used a “Life of Julia” ad that basically showed how Democrat welfare policies totally replaced men as the source of all her life needs (see the link) to appeal to young single women voters. As for appearance, women will often say the dress for other women, but the research suggests they are mostly lying or telling only half the truth, since dressing for other women is typically about competition to be more attractive than the “competition” for a man’s attention. Research also finds that women tend to let themselves go physically after they achieve the security of marriage, which again suggests that their attention to appearance is about attracting a mate.
Certainly there is no research that suggests that the average woman enjoys or wants sex as much as the average man, or that women in marriage want more sex than their husbands do. The evolutionary history is very clear, women by and large seek the best deal they can find in achieving personal security for themselves and their children, which has historically been achieved by mating with the most successful and powerful male they can attract, but since most women are unlikely to land a successful and powerful male the welfare state offers a very attractive and more “secure” alternative to being single or having to settle for a relatively weak and unsuccessful male, which is what they vote for when they have the chance to vote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96QTR9Q4VrY
@Ghatanathoah
The existence of ”lipstick lesbians” doesn’t demonstrate that they do it JUST for the looks. Lesbians are not asexual. They can use makeup to be more sexually attractive, just for women instead of men. So this example does not prove or disprove anything.
@ Ghatanathoah
Women definitely act the way E Olsen describes. I agree very much with what he said about why women make themselves attractive: we compete with each other over men. It’s instinctual, it’s how women achieve status. Some women enjoy sex as much as men do, but most want it less frequently, and generally enjoy the intimacy of it more than the climax, a difference grounded in the different way women orgasm.
Older women are, if anything, more nurturing than young women, being mothers. Why then would they not vote left in greater numbers? Many things drive people to the left, including self-interest on the part of single women and an immature idea of what it means to be nurturing. A woman generally has to take responsibility for herself and enter a partnership before understanding that domesticating and infantilizing people does them no favours.
“myth that people vote based on their self interest” oh, my, you must be very, very young to be that naive. Young and sheltered. There is nothing “caring” about the welfare state. Go live for a few months in a public housing project if you disagree.
@EO I often agree with you but your comment is really sexist. Why should my life be confined to appearance, cooking and providing sex? I personally find 2 of those three to be mind numbingly tedious compared to my interesting job in isotope geochemistry which is breaking new ground in a multi million dollar industry. As my husband is going blind he’s not the bread winner either.
AR – the truth is sexist, because the sexes are different. Obviously not all women vote for a big welfare state, and some women such as yourself are career oriented and primary breadwinners for their family, but you shouldn’t assume that you represent the female norm. The human species obviously wouldn’t survive if women didn’t have children and take primary responsibility for raising them, but historically women and their children couldn’t survive without a man’s (usually a husband) protection and income, and it therefore has always been in the woman’s (and society’s) best interest to mate with the most powerful and successful male they could attract. And this need to attract (and keep) a man through appearance, cooking, and sex is found in many examples and folk wisdom. For example, I assume you have heard expressions such as: “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach”, or “why should a man buy the cow when he can get the milk for free?”, and seen the many examples in the movies, literature, and real life of a powerful and successful men of indifferent appearance and advanced age being able to attract beautiful young women as mistresses and wives? The welfare state has taken this need to attract a mate away for many women in the lower half of the distribution that might have otherwise needed to settle for a man with poor prospects and/or bad habits, which is why the bottom half of society is full of single mothers, neglected/abused children, and drugged/lazy males playing video games instead of working to provide for their families. The breakdown of traditional gender roles has no doubt been beneficial to women in the top half such as yourself, and the welfare state has perhaps been a benefit to some lower half women, but it is still a very open for debate question as to whether society overall is benefiting for these changes.
@Avid Reader, where in the world did he say women should be confined in any way other than their nature? Please quote the offending passage. Your accusation of sexism is itself sexist, because the superficial simplification of his arguments and the personal offense you take to a summary of scientific research is hysterical. Represent women and geochemists better. As both I am embarrassed by your comment.
Avid Reader
That is an extremely common ideological red herring. A proposition being sexist or not has absolutely nothing to do with the proposition being true or false. This doesn’t even address the fact that your subjective criteria for what is sexist is precisely that – your own subjective criteria. For instance, I do not consider what E.O. wrote to be sexist.
I can be displeased by the roundness if the earth all I want, and even consider it straight-up homophobic; this is irrelevant to the truth of the roundness of the earth.
In reality women have a preference for redistribution and more left wing economic policies because they have higher empathy/compassion on average and so they are concerned with protecting and caring for the weak and vulnerable. But you just want to frame it as something negative.
Steven
My eyes rolled so hard I saw my brain. No woman here is going to date you. The ingratiating corniness of your response is unnecessary.
“Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey−fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean−mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones. It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy.”
The LA Concession
That book should be mandated as required reading by the U.S. Constitution.
There seems to be no consideration in this essay of the fact that political allegiance tends to change with age. As the saying goes, “A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head.” (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/) So do not be so sure that the leftist younger women will carry that into a bright future for socialist parties everywhere. What is interesting is the differences in political bias of women and men and between what one might otherwise suspect would be similar nations, e.g. Finland and Sweden.
This was addressed in the article.
Although older voters are more likely to turn out to vote than younger voters, the religious older generations are also becoming a smaller proportion of European electorates through generational replacement. Older generations die out and are replaced with new, secular ones. With an ageing support base and a decline in religiosity especially for women, Conservative or Christian democratic parties may no longer be able to rely on their traditional positions or messages.
It wasn’t actually addressed. The article above supposes that individuals retain their political views throughout a life-time. How solid the data is on this, and whether it’s a constant from generation to generation, I have no clue. It’s a valid question, nonetheless.
Exactly, my kids have been indoctrinated with the TDS at the local school. They espouse the “wall is stupid!” so I told them to leave their prized toys in the yard, or on the window sill with the window open…go “no! someone might steal it!” I simply said “walls/barriers are stupid, redistribute your toys to those who want them but don’t want to work for the good grade to earn them” =) They no longer see socialism as good.
We have yet to see the full ramifications to society of women getting the vote. I believe that most of the social justice type hysteria we are seeing is a direct consequence of the full participation of women in civic society.
Women are higher in neurotocism, and they are applying that trait to society at large. Women have an urge to “keep safe”, and instead of applying that to infants, they are redirecting it onto society.
I call it the feminization of political discourse. I would like to see more research on this.
One of the ramifications, at least in the UK, is that if woman didn’t have the vote, Britain would have had a Labour government continually since 1948. The caring, compassionate sex are largely Tories.
Can’t speak to the UK scenario but exactly the opposite is true in the States. If only men had the vote, we’d have had Republican presidents since 1920.
Wait, it will get even worse. Expect in 10-20 years to see women in control of ALL leadership positions in society–government, academia, clergy, corporations, military. At that point it will be seriously proposed that men be denied suffrage because–toxic masculinity.
@sestamibi
Sadly I think you are right. Mainly because feminized men will roll over like dogs.
I don’t believe that the government will turn into a matriarchy nor will women prefer feminized men. Most women have better things to do than run for office and they want manly men, no matter what nonsense they spout.
Bingo!
The anecdotal evidence supports the article. This is partly because of the prominence of organisations devoted to female issues like Planned Parenthood led by women for women for young women and Peta which reflects women’s greater compassion for animals. Black Lives Matter seems to be mainly animated by young women and there’s no male equivalent of the Women’s March. If I remember rightly, lesbians gave structure and organisation to the start of the push for gay rights. The rank of Britain’s parliamentary Labour party are full of young left wing women, many of them of minority origin and often in trouble for their anti-semitism on social media.
And I forgot the Greenham Common women who were against washing or something.
Perhaps the reason women turn right as they age is that they look back and realize that punching data into a computer or marking essays is not a superior vocation to running a household and rearing children. In a woman’s younger years, she’s hoping the government will fund her fledgling career as an artiste. As this fades, along with her fertility, reality sets in. That’s this commenter’s story, in any case.
amen to that.
from a person in a very similar situation.
Sorry ladies, you were lied to. Please tell younger women the truth.
Sorry I don’t buy that. My own experience indicates huge numbers of women who are perfectly content to grow old alone with their cats. OK as an individual choice perhaps, but devastating second-order societal effects.
I don’t buy that they are content.
“. . . found that one in six adults (17%) had a common mental disorder—one in five women (20.7%) and one in eight men (13.2%)”
https://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i5320
Sometimes its hard to tell what is the correlation and what is the cause.
There may be a political or country risk element to consider in those countries with significantly wider intersex differences such as Austria, Iceland and Sweden. That generational difference could seem to signal a type of social instability in the making. At some point, that instability would plausibly manifest itself in a political and/or economic reaction and not to the satisfaction of those outliers. Go Grrrl may transition to Go Away, we can replace you with more rational participants in life rather than shirkers, free-riders, parasites and other wreckers.
I think older women lean more towards the right for the same reason that men do. When you have a family to protect and wealth to conserve it changes your perspective on things. From an American perspective, the Black Lives Matter movement seems less appealing when one looks to the police to keep one’s children safe from drugs and gangs. Welfare is also less appealing to middle class mothers who never have a day off and cut coupons and buy their clothes from Walmart. They see women from the ghetto getting WIC, food stamps, free meals for their children. etc. whilst getting their nails done every week, wearing designer clothes, buying new iPhones, and spending money on marijuana.
Standing in line in a low income area Walmart is a very educational experience, not only for what the poor buy with their welfare income, but also how fat they tend to be. Poverty related starvation and lack of proper clothing is 100% gone from low income Western nations, unless drug addiction or mental illness is involved, which more welfare money won’t fix. Unfortunately standing in a Walmart line is something wealthy Leftists voting for more welfare and open borders seldom if ever experience.
How true. I stopped in a WalMart in eastern KY a couple of years ago and couldn’t help but notice the huge display of sugar-free products and other stuff to help local deal with the high incidence of Type 2 diabetes among them.
Anecdotal stories can be instructive if they are endlessly repeated. How many have been stuck behind the young lady and her kids in the grocery line with two overflowing carts and is paying with multiple forms of government derived payment programs? I can’t speak to her actual story, but the mind will tend to fill in the blanks…
My goodness. This article is certainly triggering the misogynists. Let’s make America great again by repealing the 19th Amendment!
Nobody actually said that. You’re hysterical reaction to the discussion of the effect of gender on voting preference does add grist for the mill however.
Thanks for the useless comment. You hate Trump. Fine. If you gave something constructive and realistic to say about his policies, let us know.
Dellingdog will tell you how utopian Scandinavia is.
Although it’s seems somewhat off-topic, my feelings about President Trump were summed up by the editors of the Atlantic in 2016:
“Donald Trump … has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read …. Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.”
In my view, Trump’s moral character is absolutely dreadful. His administration’s policies are more of a mixed bag, but since I’m a centrist liberal I oppose most of what he’s done.
Since you asked.
Trump did not win because he was the best person or best candidate, but because Hillary was worst. We did not vote for the best candidate in this election but rather the least worst.
@dellingdog
You forgot to mention Trump raped over 50 infants and led the Belgian genocide.
Wait don’t you lecture about ad hominem comments?
Dellingdog that is
@Tome, I think “misogynist” is an apt description for many of the comments on this article. Here’s an ad hominem for you: I think that some Quilletters are ax-grinding ideologues who don’t merit a serious response. I try to avoid engaging with them because I think it’s a waste of time. Clearly some people (like you) feel the same about me. I wish you would do me the courtesy of ignoring my posts so I could have constructive conversations instead of continually responding to your distortions of my views. Alas, I seem to have become your bete noire due to your pathological dislike of Scandanavia. How do you feel about New Zealand? I think that country is pretty great, too.
@dellingdog
“…would do me the courtesy of ignoring my posts so I could have constructive conversations…”
So, you consider “This article is certainly triggering the misogynists. Let’s make America great again by repealing the 19th Amendment!” the beginning of a constructive conversation?
My theory is you know you’re hyper-emotional, which causes you to lash out even more than you otherwise would.
My thoughts too. But they are probably just all out on a day trip, it gets a bit claustrophobic hiding under a bridge all day waiting for Billy goats.
Sadly, I agree. I’m old now, but look back and see the mistakes made by women outweigh their right to vote. Talk about men thinking with their penis–it works both ways.
Quite so. Women are notoriously indifferent to character and infamously attracted to the worst men.
@dellingdog
Mr. Dog, my friend, at some point in the near future we must discuss the benefits of extending a principle of charity during divisive discussions such as these. No doubt, misogynists are among us, but what value is added (to the discussion) by calling them out?
Further, it may be the case that those expounding dissenting views (from yours) are less misogynistic than they are ill-informed. Additionally, it may also be the case that you, yourself, are less informed than you. believe.
In summary, I’m simply suggesting that maybe give the nominal misogynist(s) the benefit of the doubt, before you make sweeping generalizations. People can disagree in good faith, but it does little good – for yourself, them, or the discussion – to dismiss/ignore the claims of those on the other end of debate.
There is a larger trend: “today’s conservatives are yesterday’s liberals”. Those so-called “progressives” have a total monopoly over the selection of topics, directions, issues and scandals. What you call “conservatives” is just a castrated form of the old version, sometimes referred to as “classical liberalism”. A fake/dead opposition unable to act in any other but totally reactive way. All they can do is occasional slowing down of the Progress.
Soon Bernie Sanders will look like a right winger.
The political right has been useless for a few decades.
Trump is just a small episode.
I had an interesting discussion with an in-law over the Holidays. I’m center-right, and they are a staunch hate all Bush/Trump/Repugnicans. What was interesting was hearing them rant about immigrants — clearly they are in the same camp as Trump! But they won’t admit that there is a need for a wall. They talked about the signs “welcoming all” to the neighborhood and how the folks putting those up don’t seem to care about the 15 people living in the house with the yard full of cars which devalues the home values for the rest of them … the sign poster being a renter. They weren’t real happy when I pointed out that they were racist, and welcomed them to the GOP.
Cobra, I’m not sure if you are sympathetic or not, but I do agree with your comment and I mourn the reality. I believe the war is lost, whilst many still are not aware it is being waged. We are destined for chaos and deterioration. The Trump phenomenon is the dying gasps, not the rebirth, of functioning free society.
I mourn but I do not fear. I know how the story ends.
@Tome: finally, something we agree about! I celebrate the (eventual) end of the reactionary politics which Trump represents while you mourn it, but we nevertheless agree that the U.S. will inevitably move in a progressive direction.
I suspect you believe in catastrophic anthropological global warming and the precautionary principle. Shouldn’t you also be worried about the progressives running out of other people’s money, i.e. the precautionary principle?
You may be right. The root of the global warming scare are anthropological rather than anthropogenic.
“. . .left-wing parties will face a challenge of balancing the different values and priorities of their traditional base – older, working-class men . . .” That horse left the barn years ago, and what the Left has become is reflective of that. It has nothing but disdain for the working class regardless of gender. I know Profs are generally little on the slow side but didn’t think things had gotten that bad.
I have to agree. If there is one thing that has become obvious is that the working class has been abandoned by the left. They hold them up as what they claim they are fighting for, but in reality seem to despise them. The left is the values of the upper middle class, and if it is a choice for hard working jobs like building dans or pipelines or the environment, the workers can go starve.
As others have mentioned, it would be interesting if a breakdown could be made between the omnipresent phenomena of people becoming more conservative with age vs. the possibility that succeeding generations are becoming more leftist entirely.
Young women are relatively leftish, but are loosing this edge after menopause, that means, progesteron or oestrogen hormones positively influence inclination at the left . Though, apart of the biology, cultural factors most likely also play their role here, I would think, whether maximising or minimising the gap.
@dirk
Exactly! Women are more susceptible to emotional appeals than men and less apt to do post menopause. This is only news to persons who do not believe in innate differences between men and women. It is also more established but seldom mentioned proof that gender is not a social construct.
Women vote mostly on who their girlfriends perceive as nice or mean. They are not informed voters. The next time you ride mass transportation, note what each gender is reading. Most men are reading the newspaper while women are reading romance novels.
After menopause, women begin to think about what they will be leaving their children. The ones that aren’t selfish, I suppose. This means what the state extracts from their income and wealth suddenly becomes more and more important. My guess is that this quickly changes their perspective of progressive ideals of income redistribution and equal outcomes!
I refuse to se any gender/’minority’ quotient, in the political spectrum.
Myself and my peers are seriously debating, as to whether or not the spectrum now needs to be changed/redefined?
I believe that it does.
Canada.
Where one does a job where if one makes a mistakes one is killed, one becomes responsible. The act of nearly killing oneself or by someone else makes one responsible. Very few women do dangerous jobs. Once they have children they become more responsible which means understanding the facts of life which are conservative. However welfare means someone else pays the bills, so this reduces responsibility
Much of the switch may be related to abortion. When you’re young and single, the idea that one slip could change your life forever is terrifying. When you start a family, this becomes less important. When you’re post menopausal, you could give a shit. Or at least your immediate priorities are otherly.
I also don’t give a shit, Benita, yes why? because I’m old and post, but even I have had a period (and I still know exactly when and where) of thinking to start a family, with somebody I was not even married with, happily, it didn’t work out, no offspring, no responsibility, thanks God.
One thing is consistent true in any culture, any time: the more the brain, the more right wing. Because right wing believe individualism. That means you have to think for yourself. Left wing is group thinking, you don’t have to reason, just follow. That’s why left wing protectors can’t answer questions, they are only capable of repeating slogans.
The left have brainwashed women in identity politics
I suspect it is a propter hoc error to blame older women’s rightward shift on greater religiosity. All people shift right as they age, as said in the old aphorism that if you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart, but if you are not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain.
It’s normal for young people, with no experience of life, to fall for the false promises of socialists, which is that everything will be given to them free by robbing the rich. Any sober middle-aged person knows socialism does not work and dismisses its silly sales pitches. Capitalism delivers the goods. Socialism does not.
Give the commie women free helicopter rides or tinder dates with jihadis.