> Trump’s not going to win over any liberal women voters. They’re hard wired to go against strong men like Trump. Women always have been wired that way. They’ve always been the peacenik’s if you will, afraid the strong man will start fights when they want everyone to get along. It’s way worse these days because liberal women are spoiled rotten.
> Liberal women, especially the white middle class one’s are so locked in on the Marxist, anti-patriarchy model that they’ll crawl on broken glass to vote for democrats and they’re stubborn as bulls about it.
I would have thought that women would be hard-wired to follow strong male leaders.
In the old days, at least so I recollect the theory goes, a tribal chieftain would rule the tribe from his teepee or cave or whatever. the chieftain would ostracize anyone who does not like it, until he dies or a stronger chieftain displaces him. (This would be true for all but a small number of amazonian tribes with female leaders.)
In the current case, the deep state takes the place of the tribal chieftain. Trump is the underdog challenger. The women chose the strong-person (deep state) over Trump. The MSM helps reinforce the notion of the deep state as chieftain and Trump as a would-be chieftain loser.
The women are relatively easy to manipulate because in modern US history they are rarely called upon to conduct war or witness firsthand the effects of war. Reason (in particular the ability to predict outcomes based on proposed defense policies) thus becomes less effective than instinct.
Something similar happens for the national equivalent of checkbook balancing. The Big Guy talks, the women listen, as with chieftains of old.
As a side effect of all this, presumably, women voluntarily yield their natural rights to the (all-powerful and seemingly benevolent) state.
Men are instinctively distrustful. This reflects their ancient role in tribal societies, that of the hunter. One cannot afford to be wrong in planning when trying to kill a mammoth for protein for the tribe. The modern day equivalent would be something along the lines of an armed society is a polite society. Women can and frequently do talk big because they are almost totally excused from being held responsible for the outcomes of big talk (at least until a mistake is too late to correct, and a war is lost, or inflation becomes out of control).
(Note: I am not a woman, so IRL I can only guess at their normal rationale for voting the way they apparently do.)
women seem better at following than at reasoning with healthy skepticism or leading. evolutionarily, this seems to have worked out in favor of our species overall.
this is probably true up until the 1920s when women gained voting rights.
what is not yet proven is whether or not western society can survive the women’s vote. if women consistently vote for abdicating more and more individual rights to an increasingly-powerful state then the outcome of post emancipation voting would be an all powerful state. i tend to look favorably upon heinlein’s solution, no voting rights unless one has honorably completed a modicum of service in the military (male or female).