Saturday, January 20, 2018

American misandry!

From Reuters-Ipsos, the percentages of people, by selected demographic characteristics, who think America would be better off with fewer men more women in politics. "Don't know" responses are excluded (N = 5,250):


In a zero-sum game like politics, when one group gains power it is necessarily at the expense of another group. Normal people tend not to think beyond obvious first-order effects, though. The logical conclusion of a response favoring more women in politics is that said response simultaneously--and necessarily--favors fewer men in politics.

It's both a reminder of how much influence wording can have on polling results and also how Western countries have managed to promise ever increasing future benefits while running national debts and unfunded liabilities to the tune of infinity trillion dollars.

Overall, 7% of respondents said that "America would be worse off with more women in politics". Among Trump-voting white men over the age of 35, 14% said as much. In what is becoming a recurring pattern, young white MAGAMEN are dissenting from the anti-male #MeToo feminization that has settled over our sick civilization at rates unmatched by any other segment of the population. Some 28% of Trump-voting white men under the age of 35 asserted that more women in politics is bad for America:


The sample size wasn't quite large enough to show results for Trump-voting white men under 30, but for all Trump-voting men under 30, it was a couple ticks higher still, at 30% saying America would be worse off with more women in politics. Here's to yet another encouraging sign from Gen Z's fine young white men!

13 comments:

CJ said...

Interesting that the support for more women/less men pols is slightly greater among Hillary voters than it is among lesbians. Also interesting to see that 26% of lesbians don’t believe that more women in politics would improve things.

mark auld said...

I am amazed at these low percentages considering how intertwined feminism and liberalism are...connect the dots people!

Random Dude on the Internet said...

More womyn in politics is one of those feel good platitudes but no serious analysis has been done to see if women in politics have been a net positive or a net negative. Instinctively, most whites (the only people that matter) know that minorities will often serve minorities first before whites. Yet men don't feel the same about women. Then again, even most male politicians serve women first before men. So maybe they feel it doesn't matter so who cares if women are in power or not.

Maybe/hopefully Based Generation Zyklon will start rethinking women's roles in politics.

IHTG said...

Important Observation: While race is more fundamental than sex and class, in practice it's the latter that motivates people more on a day-to-day basis.

Sid said...

I don't know if anyone has ever explained how having women in politics is beneficial. Granted, there have been women leaders throughout history who were immensely talented, but they were unique women who understood how to play a man's game extremely well. So even if there are women leaders who will do an exceptional job once granted authority, it's for the best if they're the odd exceptions in a male-dominated field.

Increasing the number of women in politics in today's context essentially means making politics less about hard-headed decisions and more about duh feelz.

I don't want the Women's March to be the norm for how we do politics, so I'll pass on having more women in politics. If extremely talented women rise through the ranks through merit, then I'm glad to have them, but they should be masters of a man's game, rather than being nags.

Other notes...

1. I'm not surprised that blacks support women in politics. Black women are far more responsible, hardworking, and conscientious than their men, so even though I wouldn't necessarily want more black women in politics, I can understand why blacks would think that way.

2. But... Hispanics support women in politics more than whites do. While there have been women leaders in Latin politics, Latin America has a fairly sturdy patriarchal culture and its women are known as being more comfortable in their femininity than white feminists are.



3. As such, support for women in politics is largely a proxy for how left-leaning your political stances are. Jews want women in politics, conservative Christians don't.

4. The Hispanic Heritage Survey made me think that there really was a quantitative basis for Generation Z being more politically nationalist than Millennials. Since then, study after study has followed anecdote and anecdote, demonstrating that, yes, Generation Z really is the alt-right generation. The evidence is now overwhelming and only gets starker.

Regardless of what happens under Trump, Generation Z will have matured as the GWAS studies come out, further solidifying their political worldview.

Audacious Epigone said...

CJ,

I was going to make a lame joke about the redundancy in the terms "Clinton voters" and "lesbians", but I restrained myself.

Mark,

Yeah, as Sid notes, women in politics means more leftist politics, so it's understandable that groups more supportive of leftism tend to also say they want more women.

Random Dude,

Yes, this strikes me as a platitude along the lines of "diversity is a our strength". Most people know the response they're supposed to give and so they give it, but would hate to have to try and articulate why it is the case. People who dissent from either of these platitudes are the countercultural dissidents. They have given a lot more thought to the assumptions than those who go along with them have.

Sid,

Since I've been paying attention to things back in the early 2000s, I've regularly heard about Hispanic machismo, natural conservatism, etc, as though Mexican invaders will install a new patriarchy in places they settle. Yet it never manifests itself in anything I look at or experience. Hispanic men who stick around after becoming fathers--about half of them--tend to take a hands-off approach to parenting or managing things. I don't get the sense that they're very assertive about anything.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

maybe I'm too willing to give people the benefit of the doubt - but while I agree that there should be fewer women in politics - my view is that it wouldn't be a big deal if women were maybe a quarter of all congressmen if they were the best. The problem is that as trump would say "they're not sending there best".

There is some sort of selection bias where the women who get into politics seem to be overly hysterical, mentally unstable. Like the mayor in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIjWc6H_kG4

Feryl said...

maybe I'm too willing to give people the benefit of the doubt - but while I agree that there should be fewer women in politics - my view is that it wouldn't be a big deal if women were maybe a quarter of all congressmen if they were the best. The problem is that as trump would say "they're not sending there best".

There is some sort of selection bias where the women who get into politics seem to be overly hysterical, mentally unstable. Like the mayor in this video:"

Krusty-

I think this is the fallout of a decadent and overly competitive era. Certainly, before the 1990's Western societies were more supportive of stoicism and not making a spectacle out of yourself. But as you show in that link, we've now reached a point at which "adults" are screaming at and over each other so as to keep the spotlight on themselves. It's like how, if you watch older NFL games, players didn't scream/beat their chests/dance after every single play. After most plays, players would business-like hurry back to their teammates/coaches and prepare for the next play, as opposed to the post-1990 norm of horrible sportsmanship and showboating (trash talking other players, pushing/shoving after the whistle, celebrating after routine plays, etc.). As usual, this disagreeable stuff became more visible in the late 80's and only got worse after that.

James said...

"After most plays, players would business-like hurry back to their teammates/coaches and prepare for the next play, as opposed to the post-1990 norm of horrible sportsmanship and showboating (trash talking other players, pushing/shoving after the whistle, celebrating after routine plays, etc.). As usual, this disagreeable stuff became more visible in the late 80's and only got worse after that."

Gee, I wonder if that started to appear after the Africanization of the National Felons League? /sarc

Feryl said...

James: many black players were in the league in the 60's/70's/early 80's, but they comported with more dignity than future players. Also, trends of idiotic one-upmanship have been visible all over the world since the mid 80's, so to blame it all on blacks is ridiculous. Note also that horrendous sportsmanship and mindless competitiveness seemed to hit lily-white hockey first, in the 1970's (when players began fighting more frequently; players in the 40's-60's didn't fight very often), than gradually migrated to the other team sports, with basketball being the last to the party (most basketball players didn't lift weights until the very late 80's),

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> maybe I'm too willing to give people the benefit of the doubt - but while I agree that there should be fewer women in politics - my view is that it wouldn't be a big deal if women were maybe a quarter of all congressmen if they were the best. The problem is that as trump would say "they're not sending there best"

It's a lot like women in business. You look at your company and see the women in senior management roles. Then you ask if they really have what it takes to be in those roles. Sometimes the answer is yes. Most of the time, in my experience, the answer is no. They are competent but not the caliber of person who can lead. Typically they're on par with the average male employee but because she doesn't have a penis, that means that average performance suddenly becomes a race to see how fast she can be promoted so that way they can wax poetically about how diverse their management team is.

Women politicians are like this but even worse. Some women are truly qualified for the role but in many instances it is middling (or worse) talent that gets overpromoted. These women have no real idea what it takes and most of them feel like they have no obligation to help out anyone who doesn't have a vagina. It's why any government funding for prostate cancer is considered controversial but if you want to eliminate free birth control as part of Obamacare, you are a sexist and probably racist.

As AE mentions, more women in politics is the same as saying it's good to have diversity. Nobody is really able to articulate why more women is a good thing other than social conditioning, which was established for no other reason than to get more women in politics so they can push politics leftward. Even the conservative women tend to only care about muh vagina issues. We have to rethink our modern political assumptions.

Audacious Epigone said...

krusty,

That exchange is not merely an argument against women in politics, it's an argument in favor of a return of patriarchy. I remember my most visceral reaction to seeing it the first time being directed at the supine men, none of whom say anything at all. All it takes for self-immolating nuttiness to prevail is for based men to say nothing.

Random Dude,

Institutions of culture could fight back against this. Eventually, they'll probably have to. The NFL, for example, instead of the gay pink cleats for breast cancer, could run a similar "awareness" campaign for prostate cancer, which after all kills more people than breast cancer and kills way more of the NFL's actual fans.

James said...

Feryl:

Your comments completely miss the point. You were talking exclusively about the Negro Felons League in your rant and were comparing how "After most plays, players would business-like hurry back to their teammates/coaches and prepare for the next play" when the NFL, and all sports, comported with "White values" as opposed to "the post-1990 norm of horrible sportsmanship and showboating (trash talking other players, pushing/shoving after the whistle, celebrating after routine plays, etc.). As usual, this disagreeable stuff became more visible in the late 80's and only got worse after that", when "black values" were accepted because muh diversity.The "look at me, look at me" nature of blacks is responsible for, yes, every thing that you call "disagreeable stuff", which came after the chimps were let out of the cage starting in the 1960's. Look at the dates in this link and then look up the names of those involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchdown_celebration


How many White faces do you see? You were talking football exclusively in your rant. If you want to make the "they're not all that way" excuse that liberals make for their pets' behavior, that is your right. Just don't expect people that understand statistics to humor you. Remember, it only took a 20 to 25% concentration of blacks to begin to ruin the urban areas of the US. Of course, they weren't "all that way", but too many were.

Your token inclusion of basketball in your response apparently doesn't remember this, which occurred in 1977.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI8nVJLHDMo

And your attempt to use hockey as an equivalent Ignores the fact that what you mean is "professional hockey". Hockey in other "lily White" countries is quite orderly and relies on skill, not on the professional wrestling marketing tool of the NHL. Besides, what constitutes a "fight" in the NHL? Pulling a jersey up over the head of your opponent and hitting him in padded areas. Let's be honest: Spectator sports appeals to the lowest common denominator. This hasn't really changed since the lilly White Coliseum in Rome. White racing fans also apparently like to watch wrecks at high speeds.