Thomas Edsall: The Gender Gap Obscures More Than It Reveals

This is a rough summary of how I see the issue.

I’ve been called a wignat feminist by incels because I don’t rage against women on this website. I like women. I don’t have a problem with women. I believe men and women are naturally compatible and complementary. Society works when it is built around this inequality between the sexes.

The problem isn’t women. It is liberalism and modernism. It is the exposure of men and women to this ideology and sensibility in the media and college. As Thomas Edsall points out here, once you account for values and education and attitudes toward traditional cultural values – what is going on in the twisted minds of women as opposed to their great-grandmothers – the gender gap disappears.

New York Times:

“The phenomenon of the gender gap — the fact that women as a whole are more supportive of the Democratic Party than men are — masks significant divisions in the American electorate.

A focus on gender gaps misses important ways that gender structures party competition because the politics of gender does not, generally speaking, divide men from women. Rather, it often engages questions of women’s and men’s roles, rights, and relative power; it pits those defending traditional gender arrangements against those advocating for egalitarian gender arrangements. In other words, the politics of gender divides supporters of gender egalitarianism and feminism — male and female — from gender traditionalists and anti-feminists of both sexes. …

It almost goes without saying, but men and women who support traditional gender roles for men and women lean strongly toward the Republican Party; men and women who question traditional gender roles and who are sympathetic to women’s rights lean strongly to the Democratic Party. …

While there are modest gender gaps in partisanship, voting and policy views, Winter wrote, “these pale compared with the differences among men and among women in views on gender roles and feminism. And gender roles and feminism have increasingly structured elite partisan debate.”

In an email expanding on the points he made in his book chapter, Winter wrote “that a voter’s personal masculinity/femininity (and views on same)” interacts with partisanship so “that people (men or women) who support traditional gender roles tend to favor the Republican Party and people who either reject or at least do not valorize traditional gender roles (men and women both) favor the Democratic Party.” The focus “is on the voter’s views about how gender should be organized (i.e., the belief that men should be masculine, act masculine, and hold masculine roles; women should be feminine, act feminine, hold feminine roles).” …”

Effeminite men and masculine women are much more likely to be Democrats. Democrats are much more likely to support atheism, sodomy, abortion, feminism, multiculturalism, gay marriage, polygamy, drug abuse, interracial sex and marriage, pornography, “sex work,” “trans,” illegal immigration and so on. These issues are all clustered together and reflect attitudes toward traditional values.

Did you go to college? If so, how do you feel about the values of your native culture? Do you identify with or reject those values? Those are the real questions.

31 Comments

  1. The ‘SJW’ cult, which is a mirror image of the fake ‘movement’ cult, but officially promoted, is fringe outside of college campuses and the most ‘woke’ corporations, mostly glorified Blogging “social media companies” in San Jose California.

    They have a HUGE online spam campaign, hence the Elon Musk Twitter thing, but are seen as cranks by even their ‘own side’. Half of the crap on Twitter is copypasta from Indian call centers contracted to Share Blue.

    It is theater, online and off.

    The polls are all push polls meant to test propaganda phrases, not people’s opinions. Most women are pro-choice if you ask them a certain way and pro-life if you ask them another way.

    As for the 4chan Andrew Anglin Nick Fuentes woman haters club, it is no big secret. If you can’t get a girlfriend you start an online club with other boys who can’t get a girlfriend and bitch about all the Staceys who rejected you.

    Neither ‘side’ matters very much, they are all just theater, online and off.

    The fragmentation of the Mass Media audience means ABC, NBC, CBS sitcoms and dramas no longer decide what is ‘mainstream’ people just aren’t paying attention.

    99% of Americans could not name a single CNN actor and pay no attention unless there is a thunderstorm or maybe a celebrity accidentally flashing her hoo-ha getting out of a limo.

    I’d concentrate on military types.

    • “It is theater, online and off.”

      All distraction.
      ((They)) keep throwing a continuous stream of garbage in our face so we can’t concentrate on things that would make our lives better.

      If it’s bad for the got, it’s good for the new.

    • “ABC, NBC, CBS sitcoms and dramas no longer decide what is ‘mainstream’ ”

      That audience is dying out.

      Amazing, that for 70 yrs, people watched that s**t, never demanding more from that amazing invention, TV.

      Jwz still remain masters of crowd manipulation.

      • Like Tucker’s examination of the content of Chinese Tik Tok vs. the American version kids are exposed too. China has nothing but educational videos and healthy content, American version is sluts twerking and anti social crap. He blamed it on a “Chinese plot” but if this isn’t just you know who controlling and degenerating our media again then the Chinese are just copying an old stale format that our NY Hollywood cultural degenerates already showed them as an effective way to destroy a societies morale.

        As if the last 70 years weren’t a deliberate inversion of Ibn Khaldun’s thesis on how civilizations rise and fall due to the strength of “Assibiya” (group cohesion, patriotism, group loyalty, etc) This is highest in nomadic peoples and wanes as the civilization ages. He cites how peoples on the periphery leading a more nomadic type existence with high Assibiya often swoop in and create new dynasties and revive civilizations, but then they loose their essence slowly over the next few centuries and you get decay until the cycle repeats itself. Problem is the decline of Assibiya in America was not natural and occurred at an accelerated pace due to deliberate subversion. Turning control of the political process over to women is one way to ride the express into oblivion.

    • “Andrew Anglin Nick Fuentes woman haters ”

      I think Fuentes has other interests.
      Besides being bats**t stupid.
      How he has a following ???

  2. “Democrats are much more likely to support atheism, sodomy, abortion, feminism, multiculturalism, gay marriage, polygamy, drug abuse, interracial sex and marriage, pornography, “sex work,” “trans,” illegal immigration and so on. These issues are all clustered together and reflect attitudes toward traditional values.”

    The cluster breaks down if you look outside the US. East Germany for instance is both the most atheist and least feminist part of the country.

    What’s with the hostility to porn? What problems does it cause? That it makes men uninterested in real women? I fail to see that in any of the young men I know. And if thats true why is there so much complaining about “sexual harassment?”

    • If nothing else, indulging in porn feeds the Satanic Jews who own the entire thing. Why fund those who are busy working to exterminate you?

    • “We can make atheism compatible with White Nationalism”

      “We can make porn compatible with White Nationalism”

      “We can make trannies compatible with White Nationalism”

      “The White Nationalist case for embracing all of leftism”-David French/Richard Spencer

      Same energy

      • There’s no need to “make” atheism compatible with white nationalism. It already is, as is proven by the fact that many leaders of the movement are atheists. You can only dispute that with no-true Scotsman rhetoric. It would be like a “Palestinian nationalist” who insists that only Muslims can be true Palestinian nationalists, ignoring the fact that many of the founders of the PLO were Christians. There are Palestinian militants who insist on Islamic exclusivity, but they refer to themselves by the more accurate name of “Islamists.” I recommend you adopt a similar breakaway label. If your form of nationalism only accepts those who worship a Jewish God, say so.

        • The problem is atheists who go around promoting atheism to the masses as an answer when it does nothing but sap their morale. It may well be true, an examination of the natural world and history suggests religion came out of social forces seeking answers and order, not supernatural revelation. But is this in fact like taking a bite out of the apple from the tree of knowledge that expels you from paradise? You can’t go back again, something hopeful and fearless within you dies. Whether true or not, are our brains biologically meant to be religious? And knuckleheads like Dawkins who go touring around saying “everyone should be atheists” are like spoilers telling four year olds on Christmas Eve that there is no Santa Claus. As if some average IQ person leading a normal life with a family will be helped by having all their faith and hope ripped away from them?

  3. Edsall’s point here also lends some explanation about how feminists in their early 20s sometimes switch to being traditionalists when they’ve married and produced children. Coach Red Pill said the same thing in more blunt terms (paraphrased): ‘Single women are generally insane and tend to become sane with children. The same is true for men, though the insanity takes different – masculine – forms’.

  4. We Live in Weimar 2.0 — But What Was Weimar 1.0?

    IN AMERICA, the public is given zero information on the “Weimar Republic,” the period in Germany post-WWI that led to the rise of the National Socialists in 1933.

    This is deliberate. The period holds too many secrets to the modern world.

    Accompanying Weimar’s broken political world was an equally sick and degenerate culture and society.

    Everything was tolerated.

    Berlin became the sin capital of the world.

    Many poor, desperate Germans sold themselves like cheap goods.

    No sexual perversion was off the table.

    At the center of this sexual “revolution” was Magnus Hirschfeld.

    He created the “Institute of Sexual Research,” located in Berlin, celebrating all kinds of sexual fetishes, conducting trans-surgery, research, etc.

    Sound familiar?

    It’s all happened before, in Weimar, Germany.

    The “German” Film Industry was also filled with degenerate themes.

    The Pornography business also became extremely popular and lucrative during Weimar, often taking advantage of German women looking for work.

    Art in Weimar experienced a similar descent into meaningless, perverse works that inspired nothing but sadness and discord.
    “Dadaism” and “Cubism” were all the rage.

    The Elites promoted this as “intellectual” and modern.

    Even prominent photographers, like Erwin BlumenfeId, sought to inject subversive, anti-German themes into their work.

    The German media, much like today, collaborated with the political and social Elite, ignoring the plights of everyday Germans and the complete degradation of German culture.

    Who ran the major newspapers and publishers in Weimar? No Germans.

    Weimar hit rock bottom when the US stock market crashed and the global Great Depression followed.

    The degenerate society was wholly unprepared.

    Unemployment, starvation, disease, currency collapse.

    Stacks of German money were often worthless.

    The Weimar nightmare was complete.

    One could go on and on about Weimar.

    Someday, I’ll do a thread on what the Nationalist Right was doing during this period.

    But I mainly wanted to show what Weimar was, who ran it, and how it affected German society.

    Weimar was the first oppressive neo-liberal democracy.

    You’re never told about it because:

    1. It ruins the WWII lies our governments tell us.

    2. You’re in Weimar 2.0.

    If you study the West today, you’ll notice the similarities.
    https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/05/we-live-in-weimar-2-0-but-what-was-weimar-1-0/

    • The book “Hitler Democrat” by Leon Degrelle is a fairly quick read that talks about the Weimar Republic and a lot of the politics happening at the time, especially the rise of the NSDAP. The book covers up until the Olympics in Germany. It’s available on archive.org and other places as well. There is a good picture in the book of someone using stacks of Weimar money to light their furnace.

      The only thing we’re missing compared to Weimar is constant Putsches, which is probably why they don’t want to mention it. Also most Weimar Governments only lasted a few months before they collapsed. If we had a parliamentary system we’d probably have the same problem. Heck we even have the same problem with Communist rabble ( BLM, etc.) causing problems.

  5. I’m no Incel but I have no doubt that when women vote they always vote for the biggest welfare state possible, mass immigration and divorce rape. It’s not a matter of liking or disliking women. It’s their history in every formerly western, now multi cultural, soon to be non existent country on earth.

    • “…when women vote they always vote for the biggest welfare state possible, mass immigration and divorce rape…”

      You are correct. Either Women have agency or they do not. If they do, and they do, then they are responsible and any criticism of them is perfectly reasonable. Some say that Men should somehow control Women to change things but this is just another attack on Men. Blaming them for problems they are not entirely responsible for. Placing burdens on them without the corresponding power to do anything about it. I say Women have agency, they should control themselves. If they can not then criticism is warranted.

  6. “the gender gap” reveals that women are the preferred target of Jew propaganda. They know the American man worships these bitches and will not fight back. The “gender gap” goes to the very heart of what liberalism and the Left is about.

    • Yes, there is also the simp effect. When females are allowed into public life, then simps will adopt the opinions of these females they want to impress. The result is the feminization of men.

      We all know male feminists who take on these opinions because they believe it will give them sexual access to females. This is just one of the mechanisms through which female inclusion corrupts public discourse.

    • >the preferred target of Jew propaganda

      Whether they are targeted or not, they are certainly more affected by it; they are more susceptible — this is because of their greater natural empathy — as I’ve said before: one of the greatest coups of the modern era is the way the media establishment has, via 24/7 always-on emotion-laden propaganda, hijacked and redirected the natural empathy of white women.

  7. It all stated with we want equal rights, get married, have children even though you can’t biologically have them, etc. It starts off “innocent” and than it becomes a cult and they’re pushing their ideology on everyone else.

  8. This doesn’t take into account the effect that the female electorate actually has on the party platforms, though.

    Even if White females vote more republican than they do democrat, it’s for a gayer and more retarded Republican party than would exist with a male only electorate, due to the necessity of appealing to female voters who like gay and retarded things. If only men could vote, the parties would be shifted significantly more conservative than is possible with a mixed electorate.

  9. Enjoyed reading Chateau Heartiste in the day – more for the political than the game content – but he was a male sociopath assuming all women shared his worldview. Can’t claim to be a Don Juan like him, but it is rather odd to bump into the circles that think all women are trash because they can’t find a good one. Hey, I wish it were 1950, too, but they’re not all bad.

    Most people are and have been nasty and brutish; modernism, in your usage, lent those characteristics visual effect.

  10. “Did you go to college? If so, how do you feel about the values of your native culture? Do you identify with or reject those values? Those are the real questions.”

    I went to college. In fact, I earned a doctorate. But I got kicked out of every institution I ever taught at because I believed in the Scientific Method, the Socratic Method and in objective truth and reason… not sheer pseudo-scientific, anti-scientific nonsense. College today is a government-sponsored cult masquerading as “education.”

    Actually, you could probably learn more from the Moonies and the Scientologists than from your average sociology professor.

      • >insane leftists control the professions

        Not engineering.

        While at larger companies there’s always some bullshit coming from HR or other useless types, and these companies may have a strong/monopolistic position (e.g. Google) as well as more people to take up the slack, no technical company that wants to remain competitive can afford to indulge too much libtard nonsense — especially small and midsize companies (a big majority) — in fact one of my criteria for judging a company after working there for a while is whether engineering has minimal management, is largely insulated from corporate blah blah, and they get rid of deadweight promptly (nothing dampens morale like tolerating technical incompetence).

        • Most engineers seem to be more libertardian than conservative (muh taxes and so on), which is probably even worse than being a standard libtard. I would rather see a they/them blue-haired abomination who wants to kill the rich than a lolbertarian who wants to give George Soros even more money.

          • Are you a technical person yourself? — probably not; your comments are often too idiotic — assuming not, then how would you know what ‘most engineers’ are like?

            I don’t know about ‘most’, but many of the technical professionals I’ve known are generally capable, self-reliant people, and rather libertarian in outlook; as a consequence, they have traditionally liberal social views (‘live and let live’), but are very skeptical of the role of, and even need for, government — so no, they wouldn’t want to ‘give George Soros even more money’ — duh.

            Did anyone ever tell you that you’re an obnoxious moron?

          • “Are you a technical person yourself?”

            Yes.

            “how would you know what ‘most engineers’ are like?”

            I have known enough to extrapolate what the majority of them are like. As you said, they often have a pretense of being “generally capable, self-reliant people.” I know and you know that they are more libertarian than conservative, so why are you even challenging this point?

            “are very skeptical of the role of, and even need for, government — so no, they wouldn’t want to ‘give George Soros even more money’”

            Giving George Soros even more money is the practical effect of pursuing policies from the frame of being skeptical of the role of government. While it may not be the intended outcome, it is the actual outcome.

Leave a Reply