Is there a scientific explanation for why women vote more liberal (Democrat) and men vote more Republican (Republican)?

Basically its just a general perception that the democrats are pro women while the republicans would prefer women in more traditional roles

>women in more traditional roles isn't pro-women

oh wow... where do I begin?

Begin where corporate America, which sets political and social policy, decided it wants more slaves. And fuck your children.

It's the fundamental psychology of having a vagina and getting off on penises inside them. It's the fetishization of being conquered, which is what liberals are all about. Liberals prioritize others before themselves, other groups before their own, or the welfare of poorer people before their own wealth.

It's not that they are selfless humanitarians; the female mindset forged by evolution is prepared for poverty. Women never had resources. So although a liberal woman may have a cushy office job in a big city, she is psychically prepared to be a groveling whore desperate for resources from men and unable to produce any resources on her own. This kind of mindset where you survive by manipulation is very conducive to voting liberal, which in its own way is another ploy to bilk men of their resources a la prostitution.

Emotions are also at play. For women without kids, which is a larger population thanks to liberalism (feedback loop), their maternal instincts incorrectly apply to those that are not their kids. It's easier to convince these women that X needs welfare funds after showing them a picture of an emaciated kid from X group. Female hysteria harnessed as a political force is a lot of what has driven Western Civilization so close to the precipice.

>selflessness is bad

no it isn't

CUTE

>psychopaths trying to justify their psychopathy by turning it into a moral code
nice try, psycho

Abortion is probably the biggest platform issue which causes women to favor democrats. There are other things like acknowledging the gender pay gap, as well as generally paying more lip service to identity politics. Also, the last two republican presidential candidates have said things which women have found offensive (Romney with "binders full of women", and Trump with "grab 'em by the pussy", among other things).

Also, the republican base is great a spewing sexist things which turn women off from the party. For instance, see this thread.

WRONG.

You are arguing from a position that is WRONG.

I have ready many statistics on voting between the genders in Britain and the US and the difference is so minuscule that it isn't worth talking about.

Women and men vote nearly the same.

The biggest shift is within ethnicities.

I'd say that the liberal side likes to present itself as more empathy-driven, more caring towards those in need, more righteous. The idea that we are not so different and that everybody's needs should be covered with less regard to their talent or effort. This is more natural for women, who are generally more socially-oriented.

The conservative side, on the other hand, has more a fetish for inequality, for strength, for competitiveness, for selection. Competition classically is more of a male phenomenon.

The scientific field investigating this question is sociology, which many of the STEM fanboys here disregard.

It's the same reason women are more likely to like communism, OP.

It's because women are inherent benefactors of a society. Having the egg means society needs a woman as much as the woman needs society. Just existing makes them part of the inner ring of special persons society wants to protect and make all trade and protection revolve around. They have nothing to lose by getting rid of guns, because they don't care who wins any competition; they win the prize. They don't care about conflict, only results. Things being as least risky as possible means they get their way, they get their snack food, they get their significant other, and men can go fuck a knothole in a tree if they want.

Women want control over their own bodies both for practical, reasonal, completely justified reasons, and because their bodies are conduits to the next generation. You can move any heavy piece of equipment with any man, but you can't have genetic diversity without a lot of women having a lot of babies to contribute to the gene pool. And each new person counts as near to a year of a woman's life to produce, so naturally a uterus and eggs is virtually priceless, while sperm is without value.

This is why women are also big fans of getting rid of gender roles. Because they cannot lose their niche, no matter what happens. If everybody makes the same no matter how much work they have to do, they stand to gain, because they seldom actually do much work, and the work still has to be done, so someone more disposable inherently has to do it than them. They literally cannot lose no matter how they feel or why they want anything, so naturally more women will just do whatever they want that benefits them.

A society with no one whom can force anyone to do anything except some nebulous invisible force called Society is how women already live, where society is them judging themselves and their female peers judging them internally, engaging in these invisible, labeleless but inherent competitions.

Fuck back to /pol/, faggots. The reasoning you're looking for has to do with the way most women in western society are nurtured, not some innate tendency towards liberalism.

And FYI, faggots, the only acceptable Veeky Forums politician philosophy is classical liberalism (aka libertarian party). Neocons and new age liberals are equally awful.

>

Wrong. Im a Chad

so, how do we fix it?

You know how sperm clinics changed society, if only psychologically, by making it so getting sperm was an impersonal affair? So lesbians and ugly single women, mostly really fat, could get the babyjuice to make babies by spending money, not receiving it from men, to have whatever primo seed they wanted?

Well, we're about to experience this for men, too.

They're working on artificial wombs and how to make egg cells out of anybody's DNA. Even your best male friend. Using his X chromosome with your Y, it'd be like you fucked his sister.

Suddenly a woman's reproductive monopoly utterly dries up. Just as ugly women and lesbians stopped being dependent on straight men for children and relationships in order to get them, and all the strings and societal expectations on themselves and imposed on them by other bitter crones as part and parcel, suddenly men can be single dads or have babies with their wives with the genetic legacy THEY want. All it'd require are healthy and amazing volunteer genetic donors who don't mind other people raising their offspring.

The tyranny of the vagina and the eggs and the uterus and the privileged special snowflake attached to it, that gets their way no matter what, is ending. Unless they decide to reveal themselves and try to keep sperm banks and clinics open while utterly banning reproductive freedom for men via artificial wombs and eggs-for-everyone creation as a misogynistic act.

OP here btw. I started this thread as a joke, but its quickly getting serious and deep.

This is probably the most interesting and original well thought out thing I've ever read on this board. It's not overly complicated but it was something I never really put much thought into. But it makes a lot of sense and makes it much easier to understand why the genders make the decisions they do. And also why the gender confusion of today is occurring and why its overwhelmingly women who support it.

To whoever left these comments, did you come up with this yourself, or is it knowledge from books you've read. If it's from a book, could you let me know which one it is? And if it's not from a book, then you should probably consider writing one, because I and I assume many others would buy it.

pussies VS balls

>They have nothing to lose by getting rid of guns, because they don't care who wins any competition; they win the prize.
Women have offloaded the mating selection criteria onto men; i.e. men compete with other men to determine who is where on the pecking order. This meant that men created power structures to settle disputes. So, women rely heavily on social sentiment to determine value.

...

Women seem to kinda like freedom, just like men do. So maybe liberals who actually don't fall back on muh traditional family model score points here. It's present everywhere since conservative rhetoric relies a bit on subservient role of women.

It kinda reminds me of those post where some right winger bitches about emancipation cause women can now cause discord in family because they might vote different from men, or that women lower men wages because we have more workforce. Outside of actual argumentation whether it was bad for wages and family divorce etc, It's extremely selfish thinking, and basically saying that women should suffer for the greater good of the nation or family. It completely ignores whether a woman would want to have some freedom or rights. As a man I would shit on any party that tries to take my rights and pigeonhole me into some role without basic freedoms.

And I seriously doubt women are important in the contemporary society for purely reproductive value. Boys look for a girlfriend for fun and fuck, not children. In fact they want to avoid having children. I don't see how artificial wombs would be beneficial for them.

61% of white women in the United States voted for Donaled Trump.

No they did not.