Last week, The New York Times featured an article titled: “How the Last Eight Years Made Young Women More Liberal.”
According to every poll, since 2016, there has been an unprecedented political/social gender gap between young American women and men.
Here is how the Times reported it:
“In 2001, young men and women had similar political ideologies. … Then, around 2016, something shifted, a new analysis shows. Women ages 18 to 29 became significantly more liberal than the previous generation of young women. Today, around 40 percent identify as liberal, compared with just 19 percent who say they’re conservative. The views of young men—who are more likely to be conservative than liberal—have changed little. …”
“Sixty-seven percent of women 18 to 29 supported Vice President Kamala Harris in a New York Times/Siena College poll in six swing states last month, compared with 40 percent of young men. Fifty-three percent of young men in those states backed Donald J. Trump, compared with 29 percent of young women.”
And why did this massive leftward shift of young women occur?
“(Because) the race became in part a referendum on gender—Mrs. Clinton running to be the first female president, Mr. Trump calling her a ‘nasty woman’ and bragging about sexual assault on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape … Seeing someone like yourself in office can spur political involvement, political scientists have found, especially for young women.”
If these reasons for young women moving to the left beginning in 2016 are correct (abortion is not mentioned; this was six years before Roe v. Wade was overturned), America has a generation of many unimpressive young women.
Let’s analyze the three big reasons:
1. “Seeing someone like yourself” — meaning women seeing a woman running for president and then seeing her defeated.
It is hard to imagine a more primitive reason to support a candidate for president (or any other office) than the importance of their looking like oneself. Yet this is one of the most frequently offered left-wing arguments for the need to elect more women and blacks.
To begin with, it is simply dishonest. Does any woman on the left prefer a woman with conservative views to a man with left-wing views? Does any black person on the left prefer a black person with conservative views to a white person with left-wing views?
So, then, if values and positions are far more important to women and blacks than whether a person is a man or woman, a white or a black, what does it all mean?
It means nothing. All it means is that emotions dictate left-wing women’s and left-wing blacks’ votes. It means that the left-wing argument for having people in political—or corporate board or any other—positions who “look like America” is pure emotion.
Is “looking like America” important in sports? Do white fans care whether the players on their favorite basketball or football team look like them? Have we seen any diminution in fan support for the NFL, given that more than half of NFL players are black and only a quarter are white? Have we seen any diminution in fan support of NBA teams given that three-quarters of NBA players are black, and only 17% are white?
Is it important in movies? Are blacks more likely to watch a film with a black lead actor, or whites more likely to watch a film with a white lead actor? Or do both groups want to see stars—whether it’s a white Tom Hanks or a black Denzel Washington? In fact, according to YouGov, three of the five “most popular all-time actors/actresses” are black: Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson and Denzel Washington. Do whites care?
Is it important in medicine? How many patients needing surgery ask for a surgeon of their own sex or race?
There is one other fact of life worth noting. Having more of your own group—blacks or women—in politically powerful positions has no positive effect whatsoever on your group. None of the black governors, senators, representatives or mayors have done anything that has specifically benefited black Americans. And the same holds for women in power with regard to helping women. Meanwhile, Asian Americans have become the most successful ethnic group in America with virtually no Asian Americans in positions of power.
2. Mr. Trump called (Hillary Clinton) a “nasty woman.”
That this is one of the three major reasons for the 2016 left-wing shift of young American women is truly pathetic. It is further proof of the title of a column I wrote two years ago, “Feminism Has Weakened Women.”
One suspects that women of my mother’s—pre-feminism—generation would have been able to handle a male politician calling a female opponent a “nasty woman” far better than the current generation of young women, the products of three generations of feminism. They were also less traumatized by men’s boorish sexist comments. There’s a wild inconsistency here as well: The whole point of feminism, according to feminists, is to have society treat men and women as equals, and equally. Yet feminists simultaneously insist that men treat women with a dose of chivalry or they’re “sexist.”
That same year, 2016, Trump called Florida Sen. Marco Rubio “Little Marco.” Did any short men become leftists as a result? Apparently, short men are considerably stronger than feminized women. For that matter, who isn’t?
3. Trump “bragging about sexual assault on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape.”
The third reason given for young women embracing leftism in 2016 was a recording made in 2005 that came out in 2016. In a private conversation with Billy Bush of “Access Hollywood,” Trump said, “When you’re a star … you can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Those comments were made 11 years earlier and in a private conversation with one person. Trump did not say them publicly.
Here is a moral rule of life: You cannot judge a person by comments made in private. We are to judge people by comments made in public, and by actions, whether done in private or public. Virtually every person has said awful things in private. It doesn’t matter. One purpose of private conversations is to let off steam.
It is a testament to the lack of wisdom of our age that we think we can know people—let alone judge them—by what they say in private.
And it is a testament to the lack of wisdom among a majority of America’s young women that these three foolish reasons propelled them to vote for the ideology that is destroying our country.
***
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and columnist. His commentary on Numbers, the fourth volume of “The Rational Bible,” his five-volume commentary on the first five books of the Bible, will be released in November 2024 and is available now for presale on Amazon. He is the co-founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS
This is not just about an Emperor who has no clothes - it is about a Ghoul who has no soul.
Trump missed one important issue that needs to be pounded home, again and again. Kamala’s support for women, should have been put on full display in regards to her subsidy of the Cartel’s massive sex trafficking businesses that start from the point of entry at the southern border and ends up in every state and city. A trip to Corona, Queens, NY should be mandatory for representatives and senators, and especially for the biased left wing progressive media, that is about as interested in the increases associated with the cost of living as Taylor Swift is over the cost of feeding her cats. What about the 330,000 children that the system can no longer locate? These represent little girls and little boys who, instead of being protected, are as forgotten as the victims were in German concentration camps until after the war.
The System, the corrupt and evil System, doesn’t want Trump back in because they know they will pay a price. They will be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned. And they know that despite a System that has removed any penalty of death, in most states, prisoners do not consider such Defects worthy of living.
You bring up an important point. The Democrat party is now the party of sexual trafficking and slavery. Horrific that anyone could do this to children, let alone promote an entire industry to be slaves of awful human predators.
However, it doesn’t matter what Trump says, what the truth is because these people will ignore fact when rubbed in their face. It’s an ideology, an orthodoxy of which they believe. As RFK Jr says, and I’ve heard from many many priests, a good method to break away at the ideology is to go Socrates on them.
Asking questions in a loving way, not challenging, will help them to hear themselves speak and realize their answers are not making sense.
Respectable women do not get ahead in life on their backs, but that’s how Kamala made it. Anyone voting for her is missing the fact that she knows nothing and will not be able to stand up to leaders across the globe. Anyone voting for her is just as blind.
I always go Socrates on them. I’m too biologically aware to ignore the fact that 100 years from now none of this pseudo science/culture will be inherited. What will be inherited, via our gene pool, will be the differences between the sexes. Technology will certainly help in obscuring role specificity but under that is sexual dimorphism which exists for a reason. I stress emphasizing the physical and behavior differences so that women can be women and attract men who do not feign similarities with women, who act like alpha leaders, and then make an analysis of whether they are worth bonding with. That is what love, passion and romance is about and love without respect will not survive.
The problem we now have is an attempt to reduce the differences between men and women. Consequently it is becoming difficult to find men who do not support their own emasculation. The Democrat Party cannot exists without emasculating men and sacrificing womanhood in the process.
You may be on to something there, task. I find it telling that this article and ’ Emasculation Nation’ came out simultaneously because they touch on two sides of the same issue.
I remember reading, not sure where, about the attempt to promote the idea that passive, soft men like Doug Emhoff are the new sex symbols and I shuddered. I still find the idea repulsive but I can see how this idea, the sudden uptick in female teachers who engage in sexual relationships with their students, the increase in violent crimes committed by women and the idea that being female should be considered a qualifying factor for any role besides being a woman are all tied to feminist/leftist ideology. And, quite frankly, it is destroying Western civilization.
Entirely too many women have bought into the idea that women’s health care only applies to what happens in their uteri; that aggressive and/or irresponsible sexual behavior makes them ‘equal’ to men & they should be free of the biological ramifications of those choices; that professional standards can, and should be, eased if women can’t pass them as written and that there won’t be unintended consequences of doing so, including the disenfranchisement of men.
There are countless videos of young to young-ish liberal women bemoaning that they can’t find decent men that meet their ridiculous laundry list of requirements. It absolutely fails to dawn on them that any man who checks all the boxes is also likely to be too passive to be a good mate or a contributing partner in a marriage. The systemic emasculation of males is taking its toll in the increasing number of men who have decided that marriage has too many liabilities and not enough benefits for them or who have become feminized to the point of becoming parodies of men.
I have to elaborate on this (too busy at the moment) but you are now becoming aware of a great truth that needs to be discussed. Women are now setting parameters for men to follow and men thinking that is what women want take that advice and then wonder why they are spurned by the very women who advised them wrongly. In the end women would rather have an affair with Count Dracula than what they created. But who told women to teach men how not to be men? That is where where this discussion has to go. I think you are smart and already know the answer. It is what you already said and the ideology is even more bizarre than most realize. It is a non surgical gender alteration and its intention is to do far more than biology that has has roots going back million of years.