#gender gap

[alpaca-clouds]

Updating the stuff for the German election. As noted: The Left Wing party is the strongest party among the youngest voters. However, our Nazis from the AfD are the second strongest. And looking into the exit polls by gender, it shows this:

Basically, the left wing party is so strong because of young women, but the AfD Nazis are so strong because of the young men.

And thinking of some of the studies I have read on BlueSky I cannot help but think about how young men do not want to go to university because that is a "girl thing". Just as those studies also found that it is not that "universities make you left wing", but rather "left wing people are more likely to go to university".

And of course we kinda know why this is. Because young boys spend too much time listening to those Joe Rogans, and Andrew Tates and what not. But I really kinda wonder how the fuck one can reach those kids.

I mean, we know also that those right wing and toxic masculinity shit stuff makes men unhappy. Because they are being told they need to reach this one ideal, that right now is pretty much impossible for them to reach.

Yeah, I don't know. This specifically sucks, man.

[liberalsarecool]

🌊🗳💙♀️🫶🏻🔥🗽🇺🇸

[reality-detective]

MASSIVE PSYOP: Weaponizing fear in Women to Repel cohesive relationships with men... (Soft depop)

Its all fun and games until we all die alone..

In my careful observations, it seems clear that women have a noticeable vulnerability in their minds that men don’t typically have. This can be linked to evolutionary needs, which play a role in how humans reproduce within our complex social structures. It makes sense—and here's where it gets even more interesting—that this perceived weakness helps women engage with potential partners without always seeing through men’s hidden intentions, like simply asking for a phone number. This delicate balance highlights the complexity of human relationships and how reproduction works.

Moreover, historical and religious texts, like the Bible, describe women as supportive partners to men, emphasizing their role in nurturing and cooperation. This background fits well with my conclusion that these built-in psychological traits in women are essential to maintaining and continuing humanity within our complicated societies.

Thus, it becomes evident why women are targeted first when a society is being dismantled. Attacking this cornerstone disrupts the family unit, creating chaos and weakening the social fabric critical to society's stability and continuity.

Disrupt this balance and watch society crumble. You Decide 🤔

[mindblowingscience]

A new study shows that female academics are significantly underrepresented in winning academic prizes and having awards named after them. Analysis of nearly 9,000 awardees and 346 scientific prizes and medals published in Nature Human Behaviour has found that men win eight prizes for every one won by a woman if the award is named after a man. These awards represent almost two-thirds of all scientific prizes. Female academics are, however, more likely to win awards that have been named after other notable female scientists, with 47% of those awards going to women and 53% to men. Dr. Katja Gehmlich, Associate Professor in the Institute of Cardiovascular Science at the University of Birmingham and joint lead author of the study, said, "The gender gap between awardees in scientific prizes is sadly a product of a long, systematic issue of poor representation of women in sciences. Despite decades of efforts to rebalance this issue, our study shows that women are still poorly recognized for their scientific contributions, and men are far more likely to win prizes and awards, in particular, if those awards are named after other men.

Continue Reading.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Cohn at HuffPost:

Election Day is Tuesday. And while plenty of politicos and pundits are out there predicting what will happen, the reality is that … nobody knows. The polls are super close, nationally and in the swing states. Forecasting models see the race as a coin flip. But you can spot some clear storylines that say a lot about how the two presidential campaigns have unfolded so far, and that might even help explain the outcome after the fact. One of those storylines is the determination and enthusiasm of women who back Democrat Kamala Harris, including women who might be afraid to say so publicly because their husbands support Republican Donald Trump.

I first heard about this last week, in Michigan, while covering a campaign event for Democratic Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin. Slotkin said canvassers were reporting stops at houses with large Trump signs, where women would answer and ― when asked which candidate they were supporting ― would quietly point to a photo of Harris on the canvassers’ campaign literature. [...]

And though the movement appears to have started on its own and spread over social media, lately the underlying sentiment has been getting high-profile support from figures like former first lady Michelle Obama, who in a recent Harris campaign appearance said, “If you are a woman who lives in a household of men that don’t listen to you or value your opinion, just remember that your vote is a private matter.” Are there enough hidden votes to change who wins a state? Probably not. But the emotional fuel for it, the determination of so many women to elect Harris over Trump, absolutely could prove decisive. If that happens, it would be one of the more ironic twists in modern political history ― and one of the more fitting ones, too ― because a campaign pitting men against women is exactly the campaign Trump and his advisers wanted.

The Boys vs. Girls Election

It’s no secret that this year’s gender gap is shaping up to be the largest in memory, with polls showing men favoring Trump by double digits, and women favoring Harris by a similar margin. In many ways, that gap was preordained not because of who’s on the ballot, but what’s at stake ― the future of reproductive freedom, and one side that’s actively pushing to regress back toward restrictive gender roles and limited rights. But instead of trying to counter that, Trump has leaned in. On the eve of this summer’s Republican National Convention, even before President Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid and Harris became their party’s nominee, Trump campaign officials boasted about how they were hoping to create what Axios called a “boys vs. girls election,” with ”Donald Trump’s chest-beating macho appeals vs. Joe Biden’s softer, reproductive-rights-dominated, all-gender inclusivity.”

So powerful was this appeal, Trump’s campaign managers told The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta, that Trump would manage to peel off some of the Black and Hispanic men who would traditionally vote Democratic, enough to offset losses among women. “For every Karen we lose, we’re going to win a Jamal and an Enrique,” one Trump ally had previously told Alberta. The Trump campaign has unfolded just as his team promised ― which helps explain why, for example, Trump has spent the final weeks before the election appearing alongside former Fox News host Tucker Carlson (who recently suggested that the country needed Trump to be a “dad” who would deliver a “spanking”) while sidelining former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (who has been popular with independent female voters). And the strategy may very well work. Polls have shown Harris struggling to hit the margins among Black and (especially) Hispanic men that previous Democrats have.

But the Trump gambit depends on winning over more men faster than he alienates women. And that’s hardly a safe bet. In just the last few years, the gender gap has been increasing at a faster pace than before, as my colleague Lilli Petersen explained recently.

[...]

The Backlash And Its Potential

How is this all shaking out?

Overall, according to a recent Politico analysis, women are accounting for 55% of the early vote across battleground states. And in Pennsylvania, a state that many strategists consider the most important for each candidate, data suggests that early voting includes a relatively high proportion of Democratic women who did not vote there in 2020. Early voting is a notoriously unreliable predictor of outcomes, for the simple reason that the data about who is voting doesn’t say that much about how they are voting, especially in an environment without solid baselines for comparison. Early voting did not become particularly widespread until 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and with Trump advising his supporters not to vote by mail. (This year, he’s generally encouraged them to vote early if they can.) But women are a larger proportion of the population and, historically, they have voted at higher rates too. Last month, political scientist and Brookings senior fellow Elaine Kamarck ran the numbers on different scenarios to see what would happen if women came out to vote in the same proportion as in 2020, given the latest polling numbers available. She found Harris would win Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — enough to win the election.

Donald Trump got his wish of this election being fought on gender roles and reproductive freedom... but it won't turn out like how he wanted it to go.

Read the full story at HuffPost.

[forsythiajo]

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

[political-us]

[i-am-a-polpetta]

considerato il mio piedino da fata n 44 devo per forza prendere scarpe da maschio e mi incazzo pure perché voglio delle ciabattine rosa che OVVIAMENTE da maschio non ci sono perché oh SIA MAI CHE UN MASCHIO ALFA CIS ETERO si mette delle ciabattine rosa oh dopo sembra frocio che coglioni dio can

[palestarlightpeanut]

E' la Danimarca il Paese più sicuro per le donne, seguita dalla Svizzera e dalla Svezia.

Nel 2024, i centri antiviolenza in Italia hanno registrato un incremento del 14% nel numero di donne che chiedono aiuto; nei primi dieci mesi dell'anno, 21.842 donne si sono rivolte a queste strutture.

L'Italia è posizionata al 34esimo posto nel Women, Peace and Security Index e al 79esimo nella classifica globale sul gender gap, con un incremento preoccupante dei femminicidi tra il 2023 e il 2024.

[spettriedemoni]

Otto marzo e le donne

Proviamo a fare un gioco: vi dico i titoli di 3 fiction della Rai, tutti biophic di grandi personaggi italiani.

Califano.

Mameli.

Margherita delle Stelle.

Vedete il problema?

A che serve la “Festa della Donna” se il problema sulla parità di genere è molto più complicato e ben lontano dall’essere risolto?

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Cox at American Storylines:

This past weekend I participated in a panel discussion focused on Generation Z, the gender divide, and the political ramifications of the growing divergence between young men and women. At one point, the moderator asked a question I had never considered: “Is the gender divide less evident among young Christians?” On its face, the question seems very reasonable, and I said as much at the time. Although inter-denominational differences can be significant, many Christians share similar values that could potentially diminish the growing rift between young men and women. As it turns out, on many critical issues, young Christian men and women have decidedly different views. The gender gap in church is indeed growing. A few weeks ago, the Pew Research Center released their 2024 Religious Landscape Survey (RLS)—likely the most authoritative source of information on the state of American religion. It’s a massive study based on nearly 37,000 interviews that includes questions covering religious identity, practices, beliefs, and change. It also includes a number of measures on political and social attitudes. Because of the considerable size of the survey and its focus on religion, it provides a unique opportunity to tackle this question.1 Let’s start with abortion. More than six in ten (61 percent) young Christian women say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Less than half (48 percent) of young Christian men say the same. Young Christians are less supportive of legal abortion than their peers, but the drop off in support is substantially larger among men. The gender gap is even wider in views about homosexuality. Three-quarters of young Christian women say that homosexuality should be accepted by society, a view shared by less than half (49 percent) of young Christian men. That’s a 26-point gap. Young Christian women are also far more likely than men to support allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (75 percent vs. 57 percent). A majority (54 percent) of young Christian women say greater acceptance of transgender people is a positive development, but only 29 percent of young Christian men agree.

There’s some indication the gender gap among young Christians has gotten larger. A decade earlier, young Christian men and women were more aligned than they are today. In 2014, less than half of young Christian men (42 percent) and women (45 percent) said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The gender gap in views of abortion has since quadrupled, with young Christian women becoming much more supportive of its legalization. This movement aligns with other surveys that show young women becoming increasingly supportive of abortion rights, especially after the Dobbs decision. Does this mean the growing gender divide among young Christians is due to young women moving left? Not so fast. When it comes to views on homosexuality the reverse is true. Young Christian women have hardly changed their views over the last decade, while young men have become less supportive. If the cultural divide has grown, how do young Christians’ attitudes compare when it comes to economics and the role of government? Here too, young Christian women are more progressive than men, but both groups are well to the left of older Christians. Three-quarters of young Christian women would prefer a larger government offering more public services. Nearly six in ten young Christian men say the same. Support is lower among young men, but they are far more supportive of a generous and active government than older Christian men. The Pew survey also shows double-digit divides in partisan affiliation and political ideology. Young Christian women are more than twice as likely as men to be liberal and substantially more likely to identify as a Democrat (15 percent versus 27 percent, respectively). [...] Rather, what seems likely is that young Christians are being exposed to the same cultural divides afflicting secular young people. Even if they attend the same church, the social context for young men and women is still quite different. Young Christian women have many more close friends who identify as LGBTQ than men, an experience that has a considerable influence on policy views. Social media habits may play a role as well. Social media algorithms increasingly segregate young women and men online; the content they are exposed to is often dramatically different, which may reinforce gender divisions. Finally, as marriage rates have fallen, even among Christians, there are fewer opportunities to learn more about the perspectives and experiences of the opposite sex in the context of a loving, trusting relationship. Louise Perry recently argued that the youth gender gap is better understood as a divide between single people. In many ways she’s right. The gender gap among single people dwarfs that among married couples.

Daniel Cox wrote in American Storylines about the gender gap on young Christian Americans (aged 18-24) on abortion and LGBTQ+-related issues in a survey conducted by Pew Research Center. The data revealed that young Christian women are more liberal than young Christian men.

[forsythiajo]

Did you know gender bias exists on Wikipedia too? Luckily, there are editors working to fight it, including WikiProject Women in Red, of which I am a part!

In October 2014, only 15.53% of English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. By April 2016, that number had increased to only 16.14%.

Thanks to the efforts of WikiProject Women in Red (and a number of unaffiliated users, of course), that percentage as of today is 20.003%! Looking at it from a different perspective: from April 2016 to December 2024, the total number biographies increased by 34%, while women's biographies increased by 46.7%!

We still have a long way to go, but this is a big milestone for the community.

If you're interested in our work, or want to join the cause, check out the project page below! (Also we are absolutely trans inclusive, trans women are women <3)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: James L. Nuzzo

Published: Mar 7, 2025

A significant amount of data on sex differences exists. Over several decades of research on human psychology and physiology, thousands of studies have been conducted regarding men’s and women’s unique and overlapping preferences, behaviors, and abilities. Moreover, in recent years, government agencies and academic journals have advised that data, when acquired in studies that include both male and female participants, be segregated by sex. Fair enough.

Given this long history of sex differences research, and the continued and proper emphasis on segregating future scientific data by sex, I have remained perplexed at the difficulty in tracking down sex-segregated results on one topic in particular: viewership of women’s sports.

I say “perplexed” because the world consists of thousands of researchers and data scientists, thousands of academic journals, a vast array of online survey platforms, and millions of people willing to participate in survey research. Yet, with all the focus on women’s sports in recent years, and with university researchers and professors writing about every piece of academic minutia imaginable, one is hard pressed to find a simple survey study, published in an academic journal, that presents data on the proportion of men and women who watch women’s sports.

Normally, studies of this type, fall into one’s lap during daily browsing on social media. If such incidental discoveries do not occur, then relevant keyword searches in Google Scholar will almost certainly discover the data that one is looking for. Yet, data on sex differences in viewership of women’s sports has historically escaped me both in terms of casual browsing on social media and in active searching within scholarly databases.

However, earlier this week, this changed. I was motivated to have another look for such data after listening to a segment on The Bryan Madigan Show that focused on sports journalist Roz Kelly’s comments about female athletes not being paid enough money. I encourage you to watch Madigan’s segment.

Unlike my previous attempts at tracking down sex-segregated data on women’s sports viewership, this time I expanded my search to include any survey online, including those published by data analytics companies or by think tanks or other non-profit organizations.

Here is what I found:

YouGov Poll

In 2023, YouGov published results of a nationally representative online survey in the United States about sports viewership. One of the questions asked to the survey takers was: “In the last month, have you watched any professional women’s sports, either broadcast or in person?” Over 10,000 men and women who were 18 years of age or older responded to that question.

The percent of men who responded that they had watched professional women’s sports in the past month was 31%. The percent of women who responded that they had watched professional women’s sports in the past month was 22%. Thus, women were found to be less likely than men to watch women’s sports.

Parity Poll

A second survey, published in 2024 by an organization called Parity, also found that women are less likely than men to watch women’s sports. Survey respondents included 14,000 persons living in Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In each of the seven countries, more men than women reported watching women’s sports “at least a few times a year.”

In the United States, 73% of men and 70% of women reporting watching women’s sports a few times a year. In Australia, 82% of men and 78% of women reporting watching women’s sports a few times a year. In France, the country with the largest sex difference in women’s sports viewership, 80% of men and 69% of women reported watching women’s sports a few times a year.

The Parity poll also included a second question that asked about daily and weekly consumption of women’s sports. Here, the sex difference in women’s sports viewership widens. Across all countries, 23% of men and 15% of women said that they watch women’s sports daily or weekly. The country with the largest sex difference in daily and weekly viewership was Australia, where 28% of men and 15% of women say they watch women’s sports daily or weekly.

A Potential Feminist Reframe

If the data from the YouGov and Parity surveys would have shown that fewer men than women watch women’s sports, I have little doubt that feminists would endorse a shaming campaign against men for their lack of appreciation of women’s athletic skills. This shaming campaign would then probably coincide with school programs designed to encourage young boys to like girls’ and women’s sports more.

Unfortunately for feminists, and thankfully for the rest of us, the data have simply reflected objective reality: women, not men, are the ones least interested in watching women’s sports.

This result puts feminists in an intellectual quagmire. Because they largely believe that women are social constructions of their environments, lacking agency or free will, they must then misconstrue the results in some way to ensure that women are not held accountable for choosing to pass on watching women’s sports.

The first way that this might be accomplished is by simply refraining from conducting such research in the future. This strategy would prevent results like those from the YouGov and Parity polls from ever entering the public consciousness, allowing doubt to be cast toward anyone who suggests that there might be a sex difference in viewership of women’s sports.

A second strategy might involve aggregating male and female responses to mask sex differences in viewership. This data processing practice would run contrary to recent calls for more sex-segregated data made by the Office of Research on Women’s Health and many other researchers. However, feminism operates from a standpoint of “By whatever means necessary,” and thus does not mind throwing out its own previous recommendations if doing so helps to advance the moment’s female cause and relieve women of responsibility for their actions.

That so little data are available on women’s sports viewership, and that even fewer data are available in a sex-segregated format, suggests that these first two strategies of hiding the realities of women’s disinterest in watching women’s sports are already being practiced to some degree.

A third way that feminists might attempt to distract from female viewer accountability is to present results in a sex-segregated manner but thenreframethe results to look unfavourably uponmaleviewers. For example, in the YouGov survey, respondents were also asked about their viewership ofmen’ssports. The results showed that 58% of men said that they had watched professional men’s sports in the past month, whereas 31% of men responded this way for viewership of women’s sports. This represents a 46.5% drop in male viewership from men’s to women’s sports. The drop for female viewers from men’s to women’s sports was not as big. For the female survey takers, 33% said that they had watched professional men’s sports in the past month, whereas 22% responded this way for viewership of women’s sports. This represents a 33% drop in viewership from men’s to women’s sports for female viewers. Thus, because the drop in viewership from men’s to women’s sports was greater for male than female viewers, feminists could attempt to hide women’s disinterest in watching women’s sports by presenting sex-segregated data in relative change terms rather than absolute terms.

Conclusion

In 2019, a male journalist, Skye Merida, published a piece at CNN titled, “Men who don’t watch women’s sports don’t know what they’re missing.” At the end of the piece, after reflecting on his own endeavour into watching women’s sports, Merida concluded: “So, if you’re one of those guys who hasn’t been interested in women’s athletics, it’s time to reconsider.”

What we have learned from the YouGov and Parity polls is that if Mr. Merida is going to call out only one sex for not watching women’s sports, he should call out women.

The YouGov and Parity polls show that approximately 10% fewer women than men watch women’s sports on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis. These results are due to men’s greater overall passion for sports, irrespective of the sex of the athlete playing. This great male passion for sports is well known and was confirmed in Merida’s own reflections: “I think the main reason I'm a fan of women's athletics is simple: I love sports so much that I don't really care who's playing -- as long as they're playing well.”

For me, the surprise in the surveys was not that women are less likely than men to watch women’s sports. The surprise has always been the odd absence of such research from the academic literature, given the large academic push behind women’s sports and the ease and low costs associated with conducting population surveys. That such research has not been carried out more regularly, with results presented in a sex-segregated way, suggests that some researchers know that the data are likely to show low female viewership of women’s sports, so the researchers conduct qualitative rather than quantitative research.

Nevertheless, the data from the YouGov and Parity polls do exist, and they are a godsend for men who have grown tired of implicit assumptions that they are somehow to blame for women’s sports not being more popular or lucrative. The data are a shield against men’s unearned guilt.

If women want women’s sports to be a knockout success, the solution is simple. More women should start watching women’s sports.

==

Some of the people who insist that men ("trans women") do not belong in women's sports - which is true - because men are larger, stronger and faster, also think that men and women should be paid the same because "women are just as good," and don't think they sound like morons.

Reminder that the WNBA has never turned a profit in the almost-30 years since it was established. It's funded and subsidized entirely by the men's league.

[ripped-up-newspaper]

I cannot say enough that this book (The Authority Gap by Mary Ann Sieghart) is one of the most brilliant and jaw dropping thesis’ I have ever read. Ms. Sieghart wastes no time getting into the nitty-gritty of it, even the introduction holds no punches. She’s concise, efficient, and incredibly intelligent, which show’s prominently in her book.

I can’t recommend it enough.