I don’t think that this is a red vs blue divide, but more of a human rights divide, affecting half the human race. Women across the world, when given access to education, work, and birth control, and the right to choose whether or not to have children, uniformly choose to limit their fertility, to work outside the home, to earn money which they can decide how to use, and to control their own lives. The only societies/nations where decreased fertility doesn’t automatically follow on the heels of increased household income, are the societies where women are not permitted to control their own lives and destinies because of the dominant religion, such as the oil-rich Gulf states.
Reduction of the birth rate is the best possible thing that could happen, because reduction of the human population of the earth will lead to less carbon use, slower global warming, reduction of the risk of war (as less crowded populations are less inclined to go to war against their neighbors to expand their territories and access to resources).
It’s going to be interesting to see what transpires in China, as their birth rate nose-dives, and their population decreases. Forced reproduction is not a tenet of Chinese communism (although forced abortion and sterilization wasn’t originally either, and the Chines communist party had no trouble forcing that upon the population). It’s hard to force women to reproduce prolifically, without having a mantra of “God told me to tell you to bear as many children as possible.” But I suppose it could be, again, that the Great Leader tells the women to have more children. Already, it’s becoming more difficult to get sterilized or access abortion in China. I can foresee a time in the near future when the Chinese authorities ban birth control, sterilization, and abortion.
For a given woman who is considering whether or not to date a man: she is not always comparing that man against other men she might date. She is not always choosing the one she dislikes the least. She is comparing that man against being single.
Women increasingly no longer need to marry men in order to have their financial (and other) needs met. Many of them are content being single. She will be partnered with someone if that person enhances her life. When conservative men say “you’ll die childless and unmarried with your cats”, she might respond “don’t threaten me with a good time”.
The assumption that every woman desperately wants to have a husband and children is not accurate. Not every man wants to have a wife and children either. My (very liberal) straight son is not interested in dating and has platonic relationships with all sorts of folks. He’ll have a romantic partner and kids if it seems mutually agreeable someday, but he’s not really planning on it. It’s just a different perspective than the traditional. I’m glad that people can do what feels right for them and still have a satisfying personal life and the ability to be independent.
I have anecdotally heard women say they’ve become more cautious with dating and hookups since the rollback of reproductive rights. They don’t feel it’s worth the risk now.
As an example, my parents were lifelong Republicans because in their minds that meant they were voting for low taxes and less fuddy-duddyness with things like getting permits (my dad has a grumpy view of building codes that boils down to: let me do what I want!).
But they have also always been pro-choice, and have always had a “live and let live” attitude towards everyone. Gay marriage? Sure, why not? We grew up with two wonderful men next door; my folks saw no reason for them not get married - in their view, who were they to say that they couldn’t get married? They love each other, they should get married. Religion? Nope, don’t force that on anyone—keep it out of the schools and do you own thing on your own time.
That was who they were as Republicans.
Well, the last 9+ years have been very uncomfortable for them, and they ultimately see the GOP as leaving them, not them leaving the GOP. They’re dismayed and gobsmacked by the party’s obsession with “getting into everyone’s personal lives” and the laws being passed to control women’s healthcare and autonomy.
If I was dating a man 30 years ago, who had views such as my parents did back then, as a Democrat I could see myself likely finding that workable.
But today? If I were dating a man who was a member of today’s GOP and what they are trying to do to society…? No, that is not possible. I can’t “compromise” with someone who finds me and others to be less worthy of human rights than they are.
I highlighted in bold the points with which I agree. I cannot speak for all women but perhaps we can agree that selectivity is logical if you’re thinking long term as the desirable outcome. Choosing poorly can mean a long, arduous future, especially if children are involved.
As for the sentences I italicized I find the notion of compromising interesting. What kind of compromise are we talking about?
Lastly,@Twoin18, I don’t understand the supply/demand point. What group is in over demand?
While not for everyone, most people seem to want a life partner ( with or without marriage). Uncompromising polarization seems likely to lead to a lot of loneliness.
I think men have very different options than women, @ coldwombat. I wish that were not the case, but it is
I think it’s the idea of an insufficient number of desirable male partners. Men are already lagging women in education so if that’s an important criteria (not saying it should be) it’s a smaller pool. The more criteria you add on shrinks it further. And that’s before you even get to politics.
I agree that having a life partner is desirable for most people. I’m glad that “life partner” encompasses more couples than in previous generations. Acceptance is a positive outcome of progressive inclusion.
Loneliness is a consequence everyone must consider when making relationship decisions. And yes, compromise is necessary for a healthy relationship.
However I don’t understand the phrase uncompromising polarization. I don’t want to make incorrect assumptions so examples might help.
While that may be, the acceptance of diverse coupledom (is that a word? lol) would mean these women could look outside traditional demographics…or not.
Women are generally more selective in terms of wanting partners with wealth, education, height, etc. So something has to give, is it better to compromise on politics or the other factors? Tall wealthy educated men are in short supply, presumably tall wealthy educated liberal men even more so. In comparison, men consider looks but don’t care so much about the rest.
So men are likely to have more potential partners who would meet their dating criteria than women. Obviously there has to be agreement on both sides to get together, but it’s the women who are going to have to decide if it’s worth compromising on some of their criteria. If not then we’ll just end up with fewer relationships and fewer children (as in South Korea, where it doesn’t seem like men are being persuaded to become more liberal by a lack of relationships).
There’s a huge difference between the global population stabilizing and the population actually declining rapidly. Japan’s economy has been problematic for a couple of decades because of rapid aging. China is just starting to encounter this issue. Maybe the US can import a lot more people, but that’s not likely to help heal our political divisions (as you see in Europe) and if we don’t, who will pay for our social security checks? I really hope we can avoid these problems, and the best way to do that is to be close to replacement birth rate.
And yet Russia is suffering from huge population declines. They want to take over other countries like Ukraine partly to make up for these losses. Access to population resources can become as important as natural resources.
Just talked with D last night. She and SIL would like to have one more child (they have one) and are looking to 2025. However…her first pregnancy was very easy and uncomplicated until 8 months in and then it wasn’t. All eventually went well. but next time around she is “high risk”. Depending on how the elections go, they may decide not to try again.
I don’t know how many other young women are thinking the same, but I’m sure at least some are.
If our country is concerned about the aging population and needing younger people, perhaps they need to consider that with laws/policies, etc.
So, with my group of friends in the South, it is discussed that some girls will head to the big Southern schools in search of their Mrs. Degree. Certainly not for that specific or sole reason, but if it happened, it wouldn’t be the worst thing. And yes, I know how this sounds.
What is happening now is the boys have little interest in marrying their college girlfriends - and why should they when their 20s are the carefree and good times? So, the girls with their fancy wardrobes and college expense accounts are graduating and having to get a job. All of a sudden, the party days at Delta Delta Delta are replaced with cubicles or scrubs.
As a friend said the other day, this was not Ella May’s plan.
And yes, I realize there are thousands of college girls who would think this is ridiculous, but there are some old-school girls out there who really do not have a work career plan firmly in place.
While that is certainly good for her, that doesn’t change the fact that there are many more liberal women than men, and not all of them are going to find men that match their political views.