Why are younger women so left wing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men have the luxury of having real friends. Women don't have real friends and its a pretty lonely life. Women will just turn on you if they feel a certain way.

Womens only friend is the government.

This is literally the opposite of reality. There’s a reason everyone’s panicking about the “Male loneliness epidemic,” and the main reason is the fact that men don’t have emotionally close friendships with other men to rely on in the same way that women do with other women.

And for the other poster that you’re accusing of being “triggered,” there’s a difference between being triggered and just looking down on someone for saying something dumb. If you’re trying to troll here, you need to try harder because your comment was too dumb to trigger anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men have the luxury of having real friends. Women don't have real friends and its a pretty lonely life. Women will just turn on you if they feel a certain way.

Womens only friend is the government.

Your anecdotal experience in your sad, pitiful life doesn't represent the experiences of the majority. Bless your heart. I hope things get better for you. Call the hotline if needed.

Triggered. Right over the target.

Lmao, you’ve really invented a rich a fantasy life to make you feel better about being repulsive to women.

This person could be a threat for self-harm. Let's back off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A confluence of irreligiousity and increased rates of childlessness.

Historically men have been more left wing than women.

Without children to care for, young women transfer their maternal feelings and desire to care to other so-called vulnerable groups outside of their family: LBGT, immigrants, the “oppressed”.

Without religion in their life, young women (and many people of both sexes and all ages) seek feelings of identity and belonging in the political in-groups.

Came here to say that. There's something to it!

Look at Christianity, whole theme of sex abuse and cover up. Just recently, a whole new exposure of abuse in the Assemblies of God church published a couple months ago, similar to that of the Catholic church. Some men with serious Christian beliefs seem prone to enjoy subjugating others. It is definitely repulsive.

Men in power have always sexually exploited the vulnerable.

What is rare is the social constraints where this behavior is widely condemned.

Sure. But many of our institutions were created to give men access to money power and influence. Religion is not different. And people are seeing it for what it is these days. So many people claim a peaceful religion, have no authentic relationship with their religion, but use association with that religion to judge and control the behaviors of others. (Most of you proclaimed Christians could not quote a single Bible verse, let alone tell me the last time you opened a Bible to study it.) And the men running said institutions are still using them to enrich themselves and have easy access to people/children they can sexually exploit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A confluence of irreligiousity and increased rates of childlessness.

Historically men have been more left wing than women.

Without children to care for, young women transfer their maternal feelings and desire to care to other so-called vulnerable groups outside of their family: LBGT, immigrants, the “oppressed”.

Without religion in their life, young women (and many people of both sexes and all ages) seek feelings of identity and belonging in the political in-groups.

Came here to say that. There's something to it!

Look at Christianity, whole theme of sex abuse and cover up. Just recently, a whole new exposure of abuse in the Assemblies of God church published a couple months ago, similar to that of the Catholic church. Some men with serious Christian beliefs seem prone to enjoy subjugating others. It is definitely repulsive.

Men in power have always sexually exploited the vulnerable.

What is rare is the social constraints where this behavior is widely condemned.

Sure. But many of our institutions were created to give men access to money power and influence. Religion is not different. And people are seeing it for what it is these days. So many people claim a peaceful religion, have no authentic relationship with their religion, but use association with that religion to judge and control the behaviors of others. (Most of you proclaimed Christians could not quote a single Bible verse, let alone tell me the last time you opened a Bible to study it.) And the men running said institutions are still using them to enrich themselves and have easy access to people/children they can sexually exploit.

Fortunately, the influence of religion on cultures around the world is slowly but surely dying out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A confluence of irreligiousity and increased rates of childlessness.

Historically men have been more left wing than women.

Without children to care for, young women transfer their maternal feelings and desire to care to other so-called vulnerable groups outside of their family: LBGT, immigrants, the “oppressed”.

Without religion in their life, young women (and many people of both sexes and all ages) seek feelings of identity and belonging in the political in-groups.

Came here to say that. There's something to it!

Look at Christianity, whole theme of sex abuse and cover up. Just recently, a whole new exposure of abuse in the Assemblies of God church published a couple months ago, similar to that of the Catholic church. Some men with serious Christian beliefs seem prone to enjoy subjugating others. It is definitely repulsive.

Men in power have always sexually exploited the vulnerable.

What is rare is the social constraints where this behavior is widely condemned.

Sure. But many of our institutions were created to give men access to money power and influence. Religion is not different. And people are seeing it for what it is these days. So many people claim a peaceful religion, have no authentic relationship with their religion, but use association with that religion to judge and control the behaviors of others. (Most of you proclaimed Christians could not quote a single Bible verse, let alone tell me the last time you opened a Bible to study it.) And the men running said institutions are still using them to enrich themselves and have easy access to people/children they can sexually exploit.

I’m not sure who you think you are talking to, I am an atheist.

Powerful men almost always set up institutions to enrich themselves and their tribe, this is true.

But some do not. Tale a look at why some societies and institutions have protected the vulnerable at no benefit or enrichment to themselves and let us know what you find.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A confluence of irreligiousity and increased rates of childlessness.

Historically men have been more left wing than women.

Without children to care for, young women transfer their maternal feelings and desire to care to other so-called vulnerable groups outside of their family: LBGT, immigrants, the “oppressed”.

Without religion in their life, young women (and many people of both sexes and all ages) seek feelings of identity and belonging in the political in-groups.

Came here to say that. There's something to it!

Look at Christianity, whole theme of sex abuse and cover up. Just recently, a whole new exposure of abuse in the Assemblies of God church published a couple months ago, similar to that of the Catholic church. Some men with serious Christian beliefs seem prone to enjoy subjugating others. It is definitely repulsive.

Men in power have always sexually exploited the vulnerable.

What is rare is the social constraints where this behavior is widely condemned.

Sure. But many of our institutions were created to give men access to money power and influence. Religion is not different. And people are seeing it for what it is these days. So many people claim a peaceful religion, have no authentic relationship with their religion, but use association with that religion to judge and control the behaviors of others. (Most of you proclaimed Christians could not quote a single Bible verse, let alone tell me the last time you opened a Bible to study it.) And the men running said institutions are still using them to enrich themselves and have easy access to people/children they can sexually exploit.

I’m not sure who you think you are talking to, I am an atheist.

Powerful men almost always set up institutions to enrich themselves and their tribe, this is true.

But some do not. Tale a look at why some societies and institutions have protected the vulnerable at no benefit or enrichment to themselves and let us know what you find.

The good people have always come out ahead of the bad people in the long run since the beginning of time. If not, all the people on Earth would be oppressed under one centralized Government run by thugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A confluence of irreligiousity and increased rates of childlessness.

Historically men have been more left wing than women.

Without children to care for, young women transfer their maternal feelings and desire to care to other so-called vulnerable groups outside of their family: LBGT, immigrants, the “oppressed”.

Without religion in their life, young women (and many people of both sexes and all ages) seek feelings of identity and belonging in the political in-groups.

Came here to say that. There's something to it!

Look at Christianity, whole theme of sex abuse and cover up. Just recently, a whole new exposure of abuse in the Assemblies of God church published a couple months ago, similar to that of the Catholic church. Some men with serious Christian beliefs seem prone to enjoy subjugating others. It is definitely repulsive.

Men in power have always sexually exploited the vulnerable.

What is rare is the social constraints where this behavior is widely condemned.

Sure. But many of our institutions were created to give men access to money power and influence. Religion is not different. And people are seeing it for what it is these days. So many people claim a peaceful religion, have no authentic relationship with their religion, but use association with that religion to judge and control the behaviors of others. (Most of you proclaimed Christians could not quote a single Bible verse, let alone tell me the last time you opened a Bible to study it.) And the men running said institutions are still using them to enrich themselves and have easy access to people/children they can sexually exploit.

Must be why the Episcopal church is shedding members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A confluence of irreligiousity and increased rates of childlessness.

Historically men have been more left wing than women.

Without children to care for, young women transfer their maternal feelings and desire to care to other so-called vulnerable groups outside of their family: LBGT, immigrants, the “oppressed”.

Without religion in their life, young women (and many people of both sexes and all ages) seek feelings of identity and belonging in the political in-groups.

Came here to say that. There's something to it!

Look at Christianity, whole theme of sex abuse and cover up. Just recently, a whole new exposure of abuse in the Assemblies of God church published a couple months ago, similar to that of the Catholic church. Some men with serious Christian beliefs seem prone to enjoy subjugating others. It is definitely repulsive.

Men in power have always sexually exploited the vulnerable.

What is rare is the social constraints where this behavior is widely condemned.

Sure. But many of our institutions were created to give men access to money power and influence. Religion is not different. And people are seeing it for what it is these days. So many people claim a peaceful religion, have no authentic relationship with their religion, but use association with that religion to judge and control the behaviors of others. (Most of you proclaimed Christians could not quote a single Bible verse, let alone tell me the last time you opened a Bible to study it.) And the men running said institutions are still using them to enrich themselves and have easy access to people/children they can sexually exploit.

I’m not sure who you think you are talking to, I am an atheist.

Powerful men almost always set up institutions to enrich themselves and their tribe, this is true.

But some do not. Tale a look at why some societies and institutions have protected the vulnerable at no benefit or enrichment to themselves and let us know what you find.

The good people have always come out ahead of the bad people in the long run since the beginning of time. If not, all the people on Earth would be oppressed under one centralized Government run by thugs.

Good people always come out ahead? I’m sure the Jews in 1940, Aztecs in 1400s, Bohemians in 1618, Hong Kongers in 1997, and Gauls in 58 BC would beg to differ.

Or good people always come out ahead because the US is currently the world’s reigning superpower and you think your group (whatever that is) will retain power forever because they are “good”?

Who gets to define the characteristics of good people vs bad people?

What about all of the bad people over the course of history who have been wildly successful?

The Aztec suffered greatly due to European colonization yet also terrorized neighboring tribes as ruthless raiders.

Are they good or bad people? Would you prefer to be living in a world where the Aztec successfully colonized Europe? I think we all know the answer to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a clear trend in which younger women are moving to the left, perhaps more than young men are moving to the right.

This article is a year old, but the findings still hold true.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/649826/exploring-young-women-leftward-expansion.aspx

Some interesting highlights:
-From 2001-2007, an average of 28% of women aged 18-29 identified as liberal, three percentage points higher than young men.
-From 2008-2016, an average of 32% of young women identified as liberal, five points higher than for young men.
-From 2017-2024, an average of 40% of young women identified as liberal, 15 points higher than for young men.
-Young Women have become more liberal regardless of college status

in my experience, the less attractive women with hair under their arms tend to lean left and generally are angry people - the pretty ones tend to be more conservative, family oriented, friendly and pleasant to be around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women want to control their education, their professions and their bodies.

The GOP is against these things.

+1 And want to keep voting!

+1

Because the GOP hates women- especially educated ones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a clear trend in which younger women are moving to the left, perhaps more than young men are moving to the right.

This article is a year old, but the findings still hold true.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/649826/exploring-young-women-leftward-expansion.aspx

Some interesting highlights:
-From 2001-2007, an average of 28% of women aged 18-29 identified as liberal, three percentage points higher than young men.
-From 2008-2016, an average of 32% of young women identified as liberal, five points higher than for young men.
-From 2017-2024, an average of 40% of young women identified as liberal, 15 points higher than for young men.
-Young Women have become more liberal regardless of college status

in my experience, the less attractive women with hair under their arms tend to lean left and generally are angry people - the pretty ones tend to be more conservative, family oriented, friendly and pleasant to be around.

In your very limited experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article from Today in 2001 on how men weren't even interested in settling down till their mid to late 30s.

https://www.today.com/health/what-men-want-20-30-40-i283386

Different times... And we are wondering why women went left??

""I'm a legs and butt man," says Andrew, a 23-year-old stockbroker. He explains, "My first thought when I see a woman is, 'Do I want to have sex with her?' That cuts out 70 percent right away. At this stage of my life I'm not particularly looking for anything long-lasting." That's probably because most male twenty-somethings have one burning desire: to build a successful career. In terms of women, well, the more the merrier. Men in their twenties want a pretty woman, an ornament on their arm to show their boss and the world: "Hey, I must be really cool to attract such a hot babe."

There's a hope at the end of this semi-shallow tunnel of youth: As men in their twenties age, they begin learning from experience. "You get knocked around a few times by women with big knockers and you realize a pretty face isn't everything," says 27-year-old Peter, a marketing consultant. "But I'm still initially attracted to someone's looks. So any busty blondes reading this can contact me through the Website. But I also want a woman who's sensitive because, hey, I got feelings."

Humans, both male and female, in their teens and twenties have thought this way since the beginning of humanity. Seeking out those who are most attractive is nothing new and it has nothing to do with politics.

Yet now the tables have turned. Young men want to settle, women say no thanks.

Who are these young men wanting to "settle"? Your anecdotal experience does not represent a nationwide trend. It's weird and creepy how you people are trying to paint all young women and men with a single brush as if you're walking in their shoes. Give them space and let them be who they want to be. Show me polling data compiled over 12 months involving at least 20 million men and women under the age of 25 and I'll take your word for it. Otherwise, this dialogue is silly and useless.

Pew Research and others.

+1 this has been a reporting theme for awhile, just try google. At any rate, I find the right focus on women marrying as early as possible (a talking point specifically of Charlie Kirk) concerning as marriage in late teens or the early 20s is associated with a higher divorce rate.

It makes a lot more sense when you pair it with the religious right's attempts to get rid of no-fault divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men have the luxury of having real friends. Women don't have real friends and its a pretty lonely life. Women will just turn on you if they feel a certain way.

Womens only friend is the government.

This is literally the opposite of reality. There’s a reason everyone’s panicking about the “Male loneliness epidemic,” and the main reason is the fact that men don’t have emotionally close friendships with other men to rely on in the same way that women do with other women.

And for the other poster that you’re accusing of being “triggered,” there’s a difference between being triggered and just looking down on someone for saying something dumb. If you’re trying to troll here, you need to try harder because your comment was too dumb to trigger anyone.

Definitely dumb. Women aren't isolated and don't think the government is their only friend. A big part of why MAGA men are ignored and avoided by women is because they talk to each other, including about guys. And when you're showing repulsive MAGA traits, they tell all their friends about you and then their friends won't date you either.

The PP clearly hasn't gotten close enough to any women to figure any of this out about them. Sad little incel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a clear trend in which younger women are moving to the left, perhaps more than young men are moving to the right.

This article is a year old, but the findings still hold true.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/649826/exploring-young-women-leftward-expansion.aspx

Some interesting highlights:
-From 2001-2007, an average of 28% of women aged 18-29 identified as liberal, three percentage points higher than young men.
-From 2008-2016, an average of 32% of young women identified as liberal, five points higher than for young men.
-From 2017-2024, an average of 40% of young women identified as liberal, 15 points higher than for young men.
-Young Women have become more liberal regardless of college status

in my experience, the less attractive women with hair under their arms tend to lean left and generally are angry people - the pretty ones tend to be more conservative, family oriented, friendly and pleasant to be around.

Except for 95% of Hollywood actresses and models…would it be news that Sydney Sweeney may be Republican if it was so common?

Of course your experience is likely limited to the Internet in your basement.

Again…even at most SEC schools where supposedly the “hot” girls go to college, the girls are mostly left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To illustrate, a minority of young women now want kids:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/among-young-adults-without-children-men-are-more-likely-than-women-to-say-they-want-to-be-parents-someday/#:~:text=Among%20adults%20ages%2018%20to,45%25)%20say%20the%20same

I mean for the first time in recorded history, women can easily opt out of kids if they want. Thus, disliking kids has never been naturally selected out of the gene pool. Will take a few generations to rectify but nature will do its thing.