Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The GOP is against these things.

yup and many women young and old are sick of the controlling crap.

And the more we are tired of it, the more men lean in lately.

There is mixed research in happiness of women who have children vs those that don't, but definitely some studies show women are less stressed and happier without kids. I have kids, but I sure believe it should be a choice. I have friends with and without and all are happy with their life choices (choice being a key word here)

The studies that you are referring to are outdated. Recent research finds that that women with both husbands and children are happier.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/marriage-motherhood-happiness-children/684064/

https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/62/3/839/400867/The-Emergent-Motherhood-Mental-Health-Advantage

I said research is mixed and that still holds true. Perhaps women should be allowed to decide what is best for themselves? Crazy concept, I know!

Agreed, however, the following statement is misleading whether you intended it to be or not.

“definitely some studies show women are less stressed and happier without kids.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The GOP is against these things.

yup and many women young and old are sick of the controlling crap.

And the more we are tired of it, the more men lean in lately.

There is mixed research in happiness of women who have children vs those that don't, but definitely some studies show women are less stressed and happier without kids. I have kids, but I sure believe it should be a choice. I have friends with and without and all are happy with their life choices (choice being a key word here)

The studies that you are referring to are outdated. Recent research finds that that women with both husbands and children are happier.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/marriage-motherhood-happiness-children/684064/

https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/62/3/839/400867/The-Emergent-Motherhood-Mental-Health-Advantage

I said research is mixed and that still holds true. Perhaps women should be allowed to decide what is best for themselves? Crazy concept, I know!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The GOP is against these things.

yup and many women young and old are sick of the controlling crap.

And the more we are tired of it, the more men lean in lately.

There is mixed research in happiness of women who have children vs those that don't, but definitely some studies show women are less stressed and happier without kids. I have kids, but I sure believe it should be a choice. I have friends with and without and all are happy with their life choices (choice being a key word here)

The studies that you are referring to are outdated. Recent research finds that that women with both husbands and children are happier.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/marriage-motherhood-happiness-children/684064/

https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/62/3/839/400867/The-Emergent-Motherhood-Mental-Health-Advantage

I said research is mixed and that still holds true. Perhaps women should be allowed to decide what is best for themselves? Crazy concept, I know!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So by this logic, this liberal married mom should not care about vulnerable groups outside my family. Yet somehow I still do.

Gonna say your logic here is not on the mark

Do you attend religious services regularly?

So being filled with God's love and following Jesus' teaching makes one less likely to care about vulnerable populations? Hm.

The loss of religiosity has pushed people to be more emotionally attached to their political beliefs.

This is true for both sexes and both political parties.

Women are just more inclined to choose Democrats because they emphasize caring for the “oppressed” which a very feminine instinct; although statistically religious women of all races tend to be less Democratic leaning. Clearly they do exist however as the PP opined.

Kindly shut up

Oooh someone’s triggered.

No intelligent people just think you are a moron.

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.

So by this logic, this liberal married mom should not care about vulnerable groups outside my family. Yet somehow I still do.

Gonna say your logic here is not on the mark

I think he was pointing out that the liberal married mom is embarrassingly stupid.

https://i.redd.it/oqaggwlntzve1.jpeg

The PP made an inappropriate correlation = causation statement not actually backed by data, but you mansplained that anecdote does not equal statistics rather than the PP?

Hm.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So by this logic, this liberal married mom should not care about vulnerable groups outside my family. Yet somehow I still do.

Gonna say your logic here is not on the mark

https://i.redd.it/oqaggwlntzve1.jpeg

The PP made an inappropriate correlation = causation statement not actually backed by data, but you mansplained that anecdote does not equal statistics rather than the PP?

Hm.

You understand the concept average behaviors across large populations, yes?

And that making a statement like, in general more women prefer to attend the ballet doesn’t mean that a man commenting that he likes the ballet doesn’t negate the initial claim, right?

Who was talking about what men prefer?

You understand that the decline in women interested in childbearing plus religion does not equate to causation of liberal views right? There can be independent factors that cause these changes.

Let’s try again. You understand that average preferences across a large population does not mean that every single person holds these preferences, right?

You are now redirecting from the original point, which was that on average the decline of childbearing and religion has contributed to the leftward political swing of young women.

No where did I claim that these two factors are the only possible cause of this dramatic shift.

This is correlation and you are saying it is causation. "Contributed to" is a causative statement and is inappropriate. That was my point and you still missed it and doubled down on this factor being causative.

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.

So by this logic, this liberal married mom should not care about vulnerable groups outside my family. Yet somehow I still do.

Gonna say your logic here is not on the mark

I think he was pointing out that the liberal married mom is embarrassingly stupid.

https://i.redd.it/oqaggwlntzve1.jpeg

The PP made an inappropriate correlation = causation statement not actually backed by data, but you mansplained that anecdote does not equal statistics rather than the PP?

Hm.

Anonymous wrote:

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

The GOP is against these things.

This. The GOP wants women subservient to their husbands and unable to do anything. It’s hard to support a party that is taking away your rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The GOP is against these things.

yup and many women young and old are sick of the controlling crap.

And the more we are tired of it, the more men lean in lately.

There is mixed research in happiness of women who have children vs those that don't, but definitely some studies show women are less stressed and happier without kids. I have kids, but I sure believe it should be a choice. I have friends with and without and all are happy with their life choices (choice being a key word here)

The studies that you are referring to are outdated. Recent research finds that that women with both husbands and children are happier.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/marriage-motherhood-happiness-children/684064/

https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/62/3/839/400867/The-Emergent-Motherhood-Mental-Health-Advantage

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So by this logic, this liberal married mom should not care about vulnerable groups outside my family. Yet somehow I still do.

Gonna say your logic here is not on the mark

Do you attend religious services regularly?

So being filled with God's love and following Jesus' teaching makes one less likely to care about vulnerable populations? Hm.

The loss of religiosity has pushed people to be more emotionally attached to their political beliefs.

This is true for both sexes and both political parties.

Women are just more inclined to choose Democrats because they emphasize caring for the “oppressed” which a very feminine instinct; although statistically religious women of all races tend to be less Democratic leaning. Clearly they do exist however as the PP opined.

Kindly shut up

Oooh someone’s triggered.

No intelligent people just think you are a moron.

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.

So by this logic, this liberal married mom should not care about vulnerable groups outside my family. Yet somehow I still do.

Gonna say your logic here is not on the mark

Do you attend religious services regularly?

So being filled with God's love and following Jesus' teaching makes one less likely to care about vulnerable populations? Hm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The GOP is against these things.

yup and many women young and old are sick of the controlling crap.

And the more we are tired of it, the more men lean in lately.

There is mixed research in happiness of women who have children vs those that don't, but definitely some studies show women are less stressed and happier without kids. I have kids, but I sure believe it should be a choice. I have friends with and without and all are happy with their life choices (choice being a key word here)