insideMAN

Are men less likely to be seduced by left-wing Corbyn-mania?

by 2 Comments

The left-wing contender for the leadership of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is heading for a surprise victory according to the pollster YouGov, with 53% of those eligible to vote saying he’s the candidate they’ll back.

More interesting than that—for those of us who view the world through the filter of gender politics at least—is the fact that the same poll reveals that Corbyn is a hit with the ladies. So while 48% of the male selectorate back the Islington MP, a whopping 63% of females polled want the anti-monarchist, lefty to lead Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition.

This left-right gender gap at the heart of Labour’s internecine succession contest seems to reflect a wider tendency in politics for women to be more left wing on average and men to be more right wing.

This has certainly been true in American politics where men and women have been voting for the “masculine” Republicans and the “feminine” Democrats along gender lines for 50 years now. Obama won the 2008 election by one percentage point amongst men and 12 points amongst women, while Clinton’s lead amongst women in 1996 was event bigger at 18 per cent.

And in the run up to the UK’s most recent general election, a stark gender divide in the nation’s political beliefs was revealed when a poll taken prior to the Heywood and Middleton by-election found that 20% more men would vote UKIP than Labour (41% v 21%) while 20% more women would vote Labour than UKIP (58% v 38%). As a result, the female electorate won the seat for the Labour Party.

This “right-wingers are from Mars and left-wingers are from Venus” divide which is found across the wider political spectrum is clearly being replicated in Labour’s narrow slice of the political salami.

Of the four leadership contenders, Liz Kendall is the most right-wing and is backed by nearly three times as many men than women (11% to 4%).

In the centre of the pack it’s a slightly different story. Both Burham and Cooper stand to the right of Corbyn and the left of Kendall, but Burnham is probably a bit more left wing than Cooper.

According to YouGov, 68% of Kendall’s right-wing backers make Cooper their second choice (compared to 24% preferring Cooper and 8% Corbyn)—suggesting Cooper is closer to the Blairite right of the party than Burham.

Similarly, 32% of Burnham’s backers make Corbyn their number two choice compared to 24% of Coopers backers, suggesting Burnham has a slightly more left-wing leaning than Cooper.

On this basis, we might expect to see more women backing Burham and more men backing Cooper, but the reverse is true. It could be that good old fashioned gender politics is playing a greater role here than standard left-right politics.

Burnham, who has been attacked for running a “very macho” and “very male” campaign has the backing of 24% of the men eligible to vote and just 17% of the women.

Meanwhile, Cooper, has played the gender card, attacking Burnham’s campaign for “suggesting that somehow women aren’t strong enough to do the top jobs” and calling on the party to “elect a Labour women leader of the party” to “shake up the old boys’ network at Westminster”.

https://youtu.be/jrNfhEfowlM?t=27m19s

This approach may have made her slightly more popular amongst women than Burham, with 19% of the female selectorate backing Cooper compared with 17% of the male vote.

What’s interesting here, is women’s greater tendency to put idealism over pragmatism. When asked which candidates they thought had the potential to win the next general election, 51% said Burnham would be likely to win; 44% said the same for Cooper and 46% said Corbyn was a winner in waiting. Yet, while women think Burnham has the best bet of becoming Prime Minister, they’d rather vote for Corbyn or Cooper.

Men also have an idealist tendency, particular left-wing men. When asked which candidates could win the next general election, 53% said Burnham would be likely to win; 46% said the same for Cooper and 39% said Corbyn.

So for men, the gap between those who think Corbyn can become PM (39%) and those who back him as the next party leader (48%), is 9 percent. For women, the gap between premiership potential (46%) and leadership support (61%) is two-thirds bigger at 15 percent.

Corbyn, it seems, is currently a runaway success with both the gents and the ladies, but is notably more successful at politically seducing women.

One final note of worth, the YouGov poll once again nails the myth (spread by the likes of BBC Woman’s Hour) that the reason there aren’t as many women leaders is because men won’t support them. In total, 28% of men who are eligible say they’ll vote for one of the two female candidates compared with 23% of women. On the other hand, 78% of the female voters back one of the two men who are running for office, compared with 72% of male voters.

All of which goes to prove that party politics—like gender politics—is a funny old game.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/14x8p1al7n/TimesResults150810LabourMembers.pdf

 

Gender equality. Man you lose, woman… You lose too! (But the state wins.)

by 4 Comments

Andrew Johnson is a retired father with six grown-up children and personal experience of the family court system.  This is his anti-statist, libertarian perspective, on why the search for equality between men and women is doomed to fail.

— This is article #71 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

I have heard that the goal of the men’s movement is, “finishing off what feminists started when they campaigned for gender equality – TRUE equality!”

It is not a good idea.  Apart from the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE anyway, it is not even wise to try and achieve something that goes against the real, observable nature of humanity.

Men and women are not “fungible”.  Meaning,  we cannot treat men and women as if they are easily interchangeable, have the same properties and characteristics, etc..

We are not dealing with, for example, haddock and cod. We are dealing with entities that are, by natural evolution, meant to complement each other when taken together, and have greatly different properties when considered separately. Meat and spuds. Plaice and lemon.

The “contentious” issues of sexual politics do have a habit of being based on “inconvenient” realities that the “equality” obsessives have absolutely no way of squaring off. We are a not a hermaphrodite species. “Ye can-nae change the laws of biology captain” as Scotty famously did not say in “Star Trek”.

Did you note I used the term “sexual” politics?  It is my personal policy not to use terms that are often associated with feminist writers. Not merely to distance myself from an ideology I do not care much for, but because I regard “sex” as more explanatory than “gender”. The reasons why “the sexes” can’t often be treated as if they are the same, is because sexual reproduction depends on them behaving differently and having different properties. “Gender politics” really comes down to SEX. Let’s not be coy now.

REALITY 1:

Women bear children. They carry a child for nine months. They provide that growing body with all it needs. It is a major thing in the life of any woman who experiences it. It is not without risks and is often a difficult time for the woman. Mentally and physiologically.

Reproduction has a hugely significant impact on females. Solely the female. Not the male. He does not carry a child. He does not bear the risk, the pain.

He is not even necessarily aware that his genes are being used to create a child — few men are “required” to fulfil the reproductive abilities of all fertile women.

So, it is natural in society that when it comes to children – babies especially — it is all about THE MOTHER. It is and pretty much always will be, geared around HER needs and comfort.

Of course, that leads us on to…

REALITY 2:

Men are required to fertilise female eggs.

Without even getting into the immense task involved in convincing a woman to bear a child for a man. (Suffice it to say, women are CHOOSY and can afford to be, indeed HAVE to be, if they want the best chance for their offspring to be strong and cared for.)

That is pretty much all a chosen man needs to do, to ensure the species continues.

Hang on, no, not quite.

Raising kids, is hard work. It is time consuming. It demands a lot of resources. Who has to provide these resources?

The mother, is the PRIMARY parent, so she is needed for that role.

Don’t like that thought? Tough. Get used to it. Times have NOT changed much matey. Nor are they likely to this century.

Perhaps a DNA test can determine who “the other parent” is. If the mother wishes that. But he is not going to be breastfeeding the child, and certainly not carrying the child for nine months.

‘Human nature does not seek equality’

So what can his role be?

I think we know that. He provides. He cares for the mother, he engages with the world of work and labour, and brings back resources. Hey, he can even change nappies and play with the child.

There are of course others who can do this.

The state will even do it. The state can (and does) take over much of the “child raising” and resource provision so that both the mother and the father can then be “free” to… Support the state!

This is why the statists like the idea of “equalising” the sexes.

But it doesn’t really work does it? Mothers remain “sacred”. Men are still expected to work to provide for mothers, either directly, or indirectly via taxation.

A fools errand…

There are other reasons I can give why the quest for equality is at best pointless and even counterproductive.

Men will usually choose to provide women with MORE than what is “equal” and indeed women (and fathers of the bride) will always be willing to rate men on how they provide for her. (Capitulation?)

Human nature does not seek “equality” it seeks MORE than an equal share of resources when it can get it.

The most obvious inequalities are FINANCIAL differentials between SOCIAL CLASSES, vast and overwhelming compared to sexual inequalities in many regards.

Perhaps consider this:

Two equal parties, are more likely to argue, less likely to be able to settle their disagreements and make a decision, and ultimately will need a third party that is ‘MORE EQUAL’ than both to decide for them and there we come back to her ‘mate’ the STATE.

So, what is the way forward for men, women, children and the family life so many of us  cherish?

Aim not for unrealistic and mutually power reducing “equality” between men and women. But for a system that encourages COMPATIBLE treatment of men and women. A system that frees men to be  the best of manliness and allows women to be the best of womanliness.

And the beauty of it is, we know how to do that. Our cultural instincts showed us, a long time ago, and it doesn’t need any state help to “engineer” it along.

Gender equality? It was never the solution, and all attempts at making  it so worsened the problems between the sexes. It was, and still is… A fool’s errand.

Feature image: Flickr/winnifredxoxo

Andrew Johnson is retired father with six grown-up children and personal experience of the family court system. He considers himself to be an anti-statist libertarian.

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com.