First, if you're going to read this do not take this as a value or other kind of judgement. Second, discussions like this are about aggregates that look to get trends from large groups of people. You as an individual will deviate from this. You might be tempted to say well that's not me! This is simply an academic discussion of gender in politics and with that said...
Marshia Akbar has written a very good piece on the gender divide in Canadian politics. Her essay starts off with the polling data we have from Abacus, Angus Reid, and Ekos showing how in the last election cycle the Liberals attracted more women voters and Conservatives more men. Other pollsters like Leger, Mainstreet, and Nanos showed very similar results.
This is not a new trend.
Previous elections have shown men tending to vote Conservative in higher numbers, and women for the Liberals and NDP. Nor is this unique to Canada. In most American Presidential elections men tend to vote more in favor of Republicans and women for Democratic candidates.
Akbar talks about how each gender looks at issues around economic insecurity and culture. Women tend to vote for parties that address social welfare and a stronger state presence. Men, conversely, tend to think about individualism versus collective approaches to addressing economic insecurity.
Ultimately it boils down to something you find in most political science classes: the struggle to satisfy the two basic needs in human beings: stability and security.
Stability refers to the need people have for things to remain as they are. Of course, people want things to get better for themselves, but people yearn for things not to change too much and too fast. Your average voter is content to pay their bills, save a little for retirement, and then enjoy their downtime. They want tomorrow and the next day to be roughly the same. Too much change is often stressful.
Security naturally refers to people needing to feel safe in their communities, jobs, and homes. They want the tools in place to prevent violence towards them and those they care about and that their property remains safely under their ownership.
The two primary genders view arriving at those things differently. Men prefer an individual approach to things. Women are more likely to look to a collective response and state intervention.
It makes sense too when you factor in things like traditional gender roles and biology.
Physically strong men trend to believe in hard work, self defense, and being providers. Of course, that's not all men or even all physically strong men. But in comparison to women that makes sense. Even modern psychology argues that men or rather males are more aggressive than females and tend to seek out leadership or roles showing dominance.
Women have historically had more submissive roles in society and while that is being reshaped today it still has an effect on how women have been raised until now. They are still pushed into caregiver roles, and are more nurturing then men. Think I'm wrong? Young girls are still given toys as children that perpetuate traditional female roles. Boys are given toys that push them towards STEM or Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math roles. Girls get dolls and doll houses and boys get Lego and action figures.
No, that is not all men or all women. It is simple what the median would be. There are still a lot of women that excel in STEM programs and there are a lot of men that are nurturing and function as caregivers.
But that median creates a society where the two primary genders take different approaches to addressing social problems. That is your gender divide. I would argue that over time, several more generations, it will breakdown. Today though, that's not the case and because of that we get our gender divide which in turn creates both a problem and opportunity for political parties.
Right leaning parties push policies and topics that attract traditionalists and males. Left leaning parties push policies that attract progressives and females.
For a political party, they take that gender divide and see how they can use it. Their understanding of it usually means their success or failure. As noted, right leaning parties push policies that appeal to individuals.
That's often things like deregulation, tax cuts, and a crack down on crime. Left leaning parties push for policies that assist those that need help to get by on a day to day basis. Naturally the problem arises when a party goes too far. When parities push traditionalism they alienate progressive voters. When a party pushes too much progressivism they alienate voters that are wary of too much change coming too fast.
Attracting large numbers of traditionalists and progressives and males and females is impossible - at least today. If a party could do that, they'd win every election in a landslide.
What do you think about gender and politics and the gender divide?
ABOUT DEVON KRUGGEL:
I'm a 50-year-old Caucasian male and was a right winger of sorts from the age of 16 until I was about 47 or so. I have got a degree in History and Political Science and one in Computer Science. Bachelors. I've been in BC since 1990, and have lived on Vancouver Island since 1993.
Comments
Post a Comment