Huh, that explains the 4B movement in S. Korea.

As a Transfem, it's because conservatives suck (granted I despise all forms of liberalism).

Also why the hell is liberalism considered "left-wing" its center right at most.

Is anyone brave enough to ask why?

Hey look if you start taking away white male privilege they freak out when they find out people of other races, genders and creeds are better than them, who knew?

Sauce, for those interested - https://www.ft.com/content/29fd9b5c-2f35-41bf-9d4c-994db4e12998

In the US, Gallup data shows that after decades where the sexes were each spread roughly equally across liberal and conservative world views, women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than their male contemporaries. That gap took just six years to open up.

So it might be worth taking it with a pinch of salt because I'm betting it's using the very dumbed down "liberal vs conservative" 'murican political view. Maybe skew all results down 3-6 points.

That's why there are so many incels conservatives and more lesbians, the numbers talks from themselves.

I believe that a significant factor for this can be attributed to mental development and maturity of boys lagging behind that of girls of the same age, during formative years. And, please read on, if you assume my argument is "boys dumb, conservatives dumb. Q.E.D."

The second factor is an education system where this offset in mental development/maturity is further confounded. Boys don't typically do as well, because sitting idle and being a "good boy", is more challenging. This leads to a path for boys to start working earlier, while girls get higher degrees. (I assume the trends for higher education by gender, to be similar, if not, then that can falsify this hypothesis).

What a person then observes they get from society, vs what you pay in terms of taxes, is skewed between these two groups, and highly correlated with gender.

If this hypothesis has any validity to to it, then one could argue that a way to mitigate this is by correcting the negative causes. Where the fundamental root cause might be improved by revisiting how education is failing boys in particular.

The challenge with this is that if the conservative parties' policies are driven by what can make more people vote conservative, then this will be a negative feedback loop. The worse you make it for a certain group of people that vote for you, the more that group is willing to vote for you.

So here's the question - is the scale consistent over time? That is, do we consider the same ideas left/right wing in 202x as we did in 199x?

Let's assume it is. We're seeing men lean towards the center/right, and a lot of people are asking why. The trouble is, the answer isn't one people like to hear - in our headlong pursuit of equity, we're introducing a lot of inequality. You lift the ladies up, while you let the men climb - all based on the assumption that the women had further to climb so what you're doing is levelling the field.

Countering this is a sympathetic voice, one offering to bring back equality or offer a different kind of equity. Casting gender equity as a zero sum game, and pushing for equality aimed at the ones not being lifted up.

I often hear the "uneducated men" argument, but that's just an ugly echo from the past serving those it once oppressed in a bitter irony. The reality is that even educated people can fall for propaganda. Especially when voting in what they see as their own self interest.

The good news is that almost universally, women vote in greater numbers than me. So on average its still breaking to the left.

Why won't anyone date me?