Critically, the cause of the gap depicted here is 100% shifts in *women.* Men 18-29 are no more rightwing than any other cohort of men. For men, it's basically a straight line going all the way down the generational ladder (with the exception of 45-64 year olds).
All the action is with *women.* But this is, unfortunately, unlikely to be how the trend is analyzed. We'll likely hear a lot about "right wing young men" after the election, even though they're no more conservative than any other dudes (and are markedly less conservative than 45-64 year olds).
Another example of ironically ignoring female agency in ostensibly "feminist" work. In truth, if we want to understand growing gender polarization in politics, all the "action" is on the female side of the equation.
But because polarization is widely perceived as "bad" and women are "good" scholars tend to ignore the female line, and try to explain "bad" things in terms of men, even if their own data clearly suggest that women are driving the trends.
All the action is with *women.* But this is, unfortunately, unlikely to be how the trend is analyzed. We'll likely hear a lot about "right wing young men" after the election, even though they're no more conservative than any other dudes (and are markedly less conservative than 45-64 year olds).
Another example of ironically ignoring female agency in ostensibly "feminist" work. In truth, if we want to understand growing gender polarization in politics, all the "action" is on the female side of the equation.
But because polarization is widely perceived as "bad" and women are "good" scholars tend to ignore the female line, and try to explain "bad" things in terms of men, even if their own data clearly suggest that women are driving the trends.
We see the same type of tendency in analyzing "red" and "blue" lines of political trends, as I detail here:
Anything that is "bad" (e.g. polarization around science, identity, etc.) is explained in terms of the red line, even in cases where all of the "action" is clearly on the blue line.
Anything that is "bad" (e.g. polarization around science, identity, etc.) is explained in terms of the red line, even in cases where all of the "action" is clearly on the blue line.
More on the ironic tendency of scholars/ pundits to ignore female agency in the name of feminism here:
https://x.com/Musa_alGharbi/status/1827334419079721082
Note, was fast typing on phone, but the above should have said that young men are no more likely to *vote GOP* than older voters. The chart is not about liberal/ conservative, but voting prefs!
I didn't notice this, but the story that the initial chart is from is totally focused on *men.* Profoundly illustrating my point! The @nytimes own chart clearly shows basically a straight line among men across generations, and a huge shift among young women, but the story is "why are young men so right-wing" (they're not!) rather than "why are young women so Democrat." 😅
Which of these two lines is driving polarization? Which shifted more? Which is more responsible for the fact that the two lines are growing further apart?
When you graph it like this, anyone can see what's going on. But once you label the top line "women" and the bottom line "men" folks somehow lose their minds and can't see the obvious pattern.
(for the reference, this chart is, literally, just taking the data from the NY Times piece and graphing it as two lines from oldest voters to youngest, with the top line women, the bottom line men, indexed to propensity towards one party or the other)
When you graph it like this, anyone can see what's going on. But once you label the top line "women" and the bottom line "men" folks somehow lose their minds and can't see the obvious pattern.
(for the reference, this chart is, literally, just taking the data from the NY Times piece and graphing it as two lines from oldest voters to youngest, with the top line women, the bottom line men, indexed to propensity towards one party or the other)
Put another way, it's just the @nytimes own graph, turned sideways, with labels removed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
