What Attracts Some Women to Conservatism?

Dec 2015
21,332
22,378
Arizona
Two points:
1) Some DTT posters (male) have evolved and some CLEARLY have not.
2) If one more person puts the word "STRAWMAN" in print......I'm going to scream. (YES. I know you won't hear me.)
 
Dec 2016
6,336
3,281
Canada
You seem to be confusing socially applied differences between male and females with biological differences.
No, that's the point I've been trying to make! Distinctions between men and women that have been applied for cultural reasons, are quickly interpreted as biological differences that cannot be altered.
*Even brain development can be skewed by social expectations and how children are educated.
Society can artificially apply obstacles for many many reasons to ANY group of people. A truly fair society does not apply artificial reasons to suppress or discriminate against women and political action is the only way to change that condition.
Sounds good.
That said, it is silly to expect a man to deliver a baby or for a woman to have health care that does not address problems of pregnancy. So, there are biological special needs of women and for a fair society those must be addressed.
Traditionally, children are viewed as a shared responsibility, not just the responsibility of the mother or the pregnant woman before bearing the child, so where did I say that health care should not address these needs?
Regarding the past human cultures, Diamond is a geographer, not an anthropologist. He presents many controversial ideas just to stimulate thought about a topic.
He certainly does! And his efforts to stir the ;pot weren't appreciated in New Guinea, for one example, where many local chiefs and elders threatened to kill him if he returns. Nevertheless, geographer or not, no one in anthropology seemed to want to take on the rise of fixed agriculture as the first great breakthrough of human "civilization" and demand a re-evaluation because of apparent declines in health and rise in violence and social dysfunction that accompanied most farming communities. Give credit where credit is due, and as many contributors to that post noted, his later errors can be dealt with separately.
Hunter-gather cultures are typically less secure in food production and demand more time dedicated to pursuit of calories
.
Wrong assumption again! Actually, the opposite is true, and was a primary reason why so many forest dwellers who lived for centuries close to farming communities, preferred to stay in the forest, and trade with farmers occasionally, but would not adopt farming for themselves, until more recent times, when the combination of environmental collapse and deliberate destruction of forests are forcing most of them out and off the land. *not just forests either, since the !Kung living in the Kalahari Desert of Southwest Africa have also been forced out of their desert dwellings by ranchers and irrigated agriculture. Their lives were generally idyllic compared to primitive grain farmers, who certainly had to toil away for long hours. The longing for the simpler life in the forest was the primary inspiration for 'Garden of Eden' type myths where ancestors have been cast out of paradise.
.Agriculture probably proved to be a system that allowed more reliable food production, more free time, and rewarded more complex societies with specialization of labor. I cannot think of a single complex large society that remained a hunter-gather culture.
The only true advantage of agriculture is to grow more food in a relative space than can be attained through gathering and hunting. Again, it's more time-consuming, and in early agricultural settlements.....even in the most idyllic areas for grain farming, like the Nile river Valley, most everyone had to be a farmer, to grow enough food to feed their families. There were no combines, tractors and harrows back in those times doing the backbreaking work!

In more recent times, microscopic examination of settlements andd skeletal teeth found in the Northeast over a period of several thousands of years, finds that natives would live by gathering and hunting until population density levels reached a threshold where not enough food could be acquired...THEN they would turn to farming. BUT whenever there were apparent population collapses, likely caused by pestilence or extreme weather, then people would go back to their more traditional ways of living in the forest and abandon their farming settlements.....until the cycle repeated itself. The takeaway is that farming was considered a last resort!
I doubt that hunter-gather cultures were particularly egalitarian because everyone could not be a hunter AND a gather.
You really need to take a break from pontificating and read something on the subject. Because for one thing, more recent research on the handful of remaining hunter-gatherer groups and those of the past, either were relatively balanced in the calories of food acquired by men and women OR the women brought in more food than the men did! Patriarchy and male dominance hierarchies don't get started until men are herding and tending animals and working out in the fields. Once men are providing the greater quantity of food for everyone, then we have male dominance hierarchies being established...not before then!

A good place to start for an entertaining read on early human history would be "Sex At Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá It focuses more closely on human sexuality, but the book knocks down a lot of misconceptions about how our distant ancestors lived. Ryan is actually a psychologist by training, BUT one who examined the research and findings of anthropologists in Brazil and spent time with them and the people they were studying, to learn something about the subject.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
6,765
1,997
New England
A truly fair society does not apply artificial reasons to suppress or discriminate against women and political action is the only way to change that condition
And ours doesn't "suppress" women. But if our laws did do that, you could thank women themselves. They've been the larger, active voting block for nearly half a century now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil
Nov 2018
6,746
4,245
Rocky Mountains
And ours doesn't "suppress" women. But if our laws did do that, you could thank women themselves. They've been the larger, active voting block for nearly half a century now.
Once again, conservatives so often go to the "blame the victim" thinking on almost every subject..
Surely you do not think that we have

rule by the majority in this country as evidenced most recently by SCOTUS on gerrymandering and the election of Trump. In addition, this discussion deals with the lack of uniform concern for women's issues by women as a premise and that has been demonstrated regularly by female conservatives. The value or significance of an issue is not reflected by the presence or absence of political power as many issues in politics are controlled by a fortunate powerful minority.

I am still waiting for your proof that conservative politics has promoted women's issues and is not an obstacle to efforts at female equal opportunity.
 
Nov 2018
6,746
4,245
Rocky Mountains
No, that's the point I've been trying to make! Distinctions between men and women that have been applied for cultural reasons, are quickly interpreted as biological differences that cannot be altered.
*Even brain development can be skewed by social expectations and how children are educated.

Sounds good.

Traditionally, children are viewed as a shared responsibility, not just the responsibility of the mother or the pregnant woman before bearing the child, so where did I say that health care should not address these needs?

He certainly does! And his efforts to stir the ;pot weren't appreciated in New Guinea, for one example, where many local chiefs and elders threatened to kill him if he returns. Nevertheless, geographer or not, no one in anthropology seemed to want to take on the rise of fixed agriculture as the first great breakthrough of human "civilization" and demand a re-evaluation because of apparent declines in health and rise in violence and social dysfunction that accompanied most farming communities. Give credit where credit is due, and as many contributors to that post noted, his later errors can be dealt with separately.
.
Wrong assumption again! Actually, the opposite is true, and was a primary reason why so many forest dwellers who lived for centuries close to farming communities, preferred to stay in the forest, and trade with farmers occasionally, but would not adopt farming for themselves, until more recent times, when the combination of environmental collapse and deliberate destruction of forests are forcing most of them out and off the land. *not just forests either, since the !Kung living in the Kalahari Desert of Southwest Africa have also been forced out of their desert dwellings by ranchers and irrigated agriculture. Their lives were generally idyllic compared to primitive grain farmers, who certainly had to toil away for long hours. The longing for the simpler life in the forest was the primary inspiration for 'Garden of Eden' type myths where ancestors have been cast out of paradise.

The only true advantage of agriculture is to grow more food in a relative space than can be attained through gathering and hunting. Again, it's more time-consuming, and in early agricultural settlements.....even in the most idyllic areas for grain farming, like the Nile river Valley, most everyone had to be a farmer, to grow enough food to feed their families. There were no combines, tractors and harrows back in those times doing the backbreaking work!

In more recent times, microscopic examination of settlements andd skeletal teeth found in the Northeast over a period of several thousands of years, finds that natives would live by gathering and hunting until population density levels reached a threshold where not enough food could be acquired...THEN they would turn to farming. BUT whenever there were apparent population collapses, likely caused by pestilence or extreme weather, then people would go back to their more traditional ways of living in the forest and abandon their farming settlements.....until the cycle repeated itself. The takeaway is that farming was considered a last resort!

You really need to take a break from pontificating and read something on the subject. Because for one thing, more recent research on the handful of remaining hunter-gatherer groups and those of the past, either were relatively balanced in the calories of food acquired by men and women OR the women brought in more food than the men did! Patriarchy and male dominance hierarchies don't get started until men are herding and tending animals and working out in the fields. Once men are providing the greater quantity of food for everyone, then we have male dominance hierarchies being established...not before then!

A good place to start for an entertaining read on early human history would be "Sex At Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá It focuses more closely on human sexuality, but the book knocks down a lot of misconceptions about how our distant ancestors lived. Ryan is actually a psychologist by training, BUT one who examined the research and findings of anthropologists in Brazil and spent time with them and the people they were
tudying, to learn something about the subject.
This is too far from the OP and your post contains too many unsubstantiated and counter-intuitive claims. Hunter-gather cultures require transient and temporary settlements, depend upon difficult to control external factors (fluctuations of the populations of game), and, even now, demonstrate many examples of gender-based distribution of work. So your claim that historically human populations where somehow more egalitarian just seems unlikely.
 
Nov 2017
2,163
1,007
.
Wow! How has this thread been able to linger on this forum for days? Sexist posts are against the stated forum rules.

What Attracts Some Women to Conservatism? - this (the very title of this thread) itself is male chauvinism & something doesn't get any more sexist than male chauvinism.
 
Dec 2018
6,765
1,997
New England
Wow! How has this thread been able to linger on this forum for days? Sexist posts are against the stated forum rules.

What Attracts Some Women to Conservatism? - this (the very title of this thread) itself is male chauvinism & something doesn't get any more sexist than male chauvinism.
Millions of women vote Republican; how come it's chauvinism to ask why?
 
Nov 2018
6,746
4,245
Rocky Mountains
More than from men, we have the politicians and laws women want. That's not blame, that's simply a fact.
Dictatorships only exist because people want them?
Oppression only exists because people choose it?
inertia exists in social and political systems that is not necessarily a reflection of the best or majority opinion.

I am sure there is a phrase for this sort of self-justifying argument you so often like to make. If not, perhaps it should be called Panglossian libertarianism or fatalistic uniformism or political pantheism....
 
Dec 2015
21,332
22,378
Arizona
Wow! How has this thread been able to linger on this forum for days? Sexist posts are against the stated forum rules.

What Attracts Some Women to Conservatism? - this (the very title of this thread) itself is male chauvinism & something doesn't get any more sexist than male chauvinism.
Rubbish. There's nothing chauvinistic about discussing segments of our population that vote one way or another. We've done it a thousand times: Why do Millens vote the way they do and what the trends are? Why uneducated white males voted for Trump? Why uneducated, religious white WOMEN vote for Trump? Why the black/Hispanic/Jewish/Muslim communities vote for Democrats? Why veterans/military vote for Republicans? Why corporate MEN vote for Republicans? Why teachers are Democrats? Why surgeons are Republican? We have discussed divisions by RACE, religion, gender and education.
But now you think it's prejudicial to discuss voter demographics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG