This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The short version of that is that the Democratic policies are based on strong appeals to emotions, be it general anxiety, sympathy, or outright fear of vaguely specified catastrophes happening in the future.
Women are generally more susceptible to pure emotional appeals:
(I plucked this study at random, but there are MANY like it.)
Women also tend to be conform more to 'public' pressure. than men so it'd be unsurprising they'd follow each other's lead and cluster around the same parties/candidates if they think all the other girls are doing so.
THUS if you build your coalition largely around those groups that respond most strongly to emotional rhetoric, it will end up having an outsize amount of women in it.
Simple as.
The slightly longer version:
Women are just way more neurotic now.
So many of them are in a constant state of anxiety.
(Fun research I read recently: there's been a noticeable rise in young females' "Solo" alcohol consumption.)
This all means they are extra sensitive to fear-based messaging.
Which political actors are keen on exploiting. Make your voters believe that the sky is falling, the climate is overheating, the KKK is about to arise and re-instate segregation, children are dying en masse in some random country, that measles is making a comeback, whatever.
Make your voters believe the other party/tribe is the reason for these occurrence, or at least the main obstacle stopping them from fixing them.
And then propose that the crisis can be fixed (and your anxieties relieved) by voting the 'correct' way. And now you've got a motivated, easily controlled, almost fanatical voter based to mobilize around election time.
But, of course, voting never actually fixes the anxiety issue, because the source of the anxiety wasn't actually what they said it was. So you can exploit those anxious tendencies indefinitely.
Which is why liberals, especially 'extreme' liberals, have much, much higher rates of mental illness diagnoses than moderates and conservatives.
So the political message is simple. "You should be afraid. You should fear [external thing]. Republicans are causing [external thing]. Vote for us to make [external thing] go away."
Add in that Women have more student loan debt than men.
Add in that Women Consume more healthcare and spend more on prescription drugs.
Add in that Women are by and large more likely to be receiving welfare benefits from the state although THAT is strongly mediated by race (scroll down and click the "Filter by Characteristics - Individuals" tab).
And you can see why they would tend to cluster towards the party that promises to forgive student debt, make healthcare free, and preserve or increase various welfare benefits.
So it all seems pretty straightforward.
Notice that the women who buck this trend are the married ones. They're happier, less mentally ill (not less stressed necessarily), and more likely to vote Republican.
But there are fewer women getting married, so whichever way the causal arrow points, its not too surprising there's a large pool of single women that are more likely to vote Democrat.
So in conclusion:
There's one party that caters to the most insecure, anxious, fearful and conformist subsets of the population.
And there's an increasing pool of insecure, anxious, fearful, relatively conformist women for them to cater to.
2 + 2 = 4.
More options
Context Copy link