American political ideology as a whole has shifted left in recent years, but women are becoming even more liberal, according to Gallup.
The survey data, released Wednesday, shows that while the country remains largely center-right, the percentage of those identifying as or leaning liberal has increased over the past three decades, and is now just 1 percent under it’s all-time high.
Roughly 36 percent of adults identify as conservative, 25 percent as liberal and the rest identify as either moderate or unsure, according to the poll.
When broken down by gender ideology, women in the youngest and oldest age groups said they were more likely to identify as liberal.
Women ages 18-29 were 40 percent more likely to be liberal in 2023, a slight decrease from 41 percent in 2022 and 44 percent in 2020, but still higher than the 30 percent in 2013. Those ages 65 and older were 25 percent more likely to identify as liberal — a slight increase from the 21 percent reported in 2013.
Pfffffffffff… 😂🤦♀️
The American political landscape doesn’t even have the left on it.
In all honesty, it’s really fucking depressing that despite the blatant and open attack by one party on women’s rights, and the complete impotence of the other to restore, or hell, even fucking address what bare minimum rights they once had, outside of a campaign speech, more women haven’t realised that no one in the system is serving them, and shift to the actual left, but sadly the propaganda seems just too powerful (or on some cases, the other privileges still too comfortable to risk, even in the face of loss of autonomy to the state).
This is true for wide swaths of the people. The black community is famously ignored by the Democratic party, since the party knows that their opposition would re-implement segregation or even slavery if they could. Similar for LGBT+, native Americans, and so on.
I’d say it’s also bad for the right. If you actually believe what the Republicans in the late 20th century claimed that they believed about conservative values (self-reliance, law and order, nuclear family values, and so on) then you have nowhere to vote but the dumpster fire of the Trump party
Except it isn’t bad for the right, it’s designed by them to be this way - it’s one of the ways in which the they get the Overton window to shift more and more and more to the right.
Removed by mod
Your comment is such a huge straw man argument, I’m naming it Scarecrow. Wtf are you on about, friend. The comment above yours made none of the assertions you’re disagreeing with.
Removed by mod
You’re right about one thing, men and other people who have uteruses also get a say.
Over their own motherfucking bodies.
About which you (nor your make believe feminists) get none, you abusive anti-choicer pos.
Removed by mod
The piece of shit misogynist anti-choicer is also a transphobe, fucking shocker… 🙄
Removed by mod
So I’ve got everything set up that will allow me to have a child and I’m getting married. Women like me have existed longer than wither of us have been alive good sir
You are a man and you have been fooled into this belief by a segment of society. It will haunt you until you accept your actual nature which is what you were born as.
Fuck off bigot
To say your comment rises to the level of transphobia would be disingenous. You have absolutely no understanding of what it means to be trans and have no business calling anyone delusional.
Doubling down, comment after comment, earns you a ban. Read up on the topic before you come back.
“No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.”
You are well within your right to say “abortion is a sin” like the way you are within your right to say “idolatry is a sin”.
The problem is that your argument for abortion being the same charge as murder doesn’t amount to good legal reasoning. Not wanting people avoiding consequences for “debauchery” is just reason why YOU don’t want abortion to be legal and NOT a good reason to make abortion a murder charge.
Removed by mod
I never said anything about bodily autonomy. I stated that just because you think abortion is/can be “convenient” isn’t grounds for declaring abortion the same as a murder.
Removed by mod
Only if you ignore the bulk of medical science. You can spend five minutes on PubMed. You don’t seem particularly literate, but you might be able to use assistive tools to help you.
Removed by mod
Okay, so basically anything that doesn’t confirm your preconfirmed notions you discard. It’s very easy to confirm whatever you want if you dismiss everything that disproves it out of hand :)
Removed by mod
gross. go back to reddit.
What’s gross is killing an unborn child because you perceive it as an inconvenience to your debauchery. It’s evil.
The vast majority of abortions are performed to protect the would-be mother or cut losses after the pregnancy has already failed. Usually both. Putting up barriers to that isn’t helping the unborn. It’s killing and torturing women. That’s evil.
That is not even remotely true and it is factually false. Here’s a source that proves you’re lying.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/reasons-for-abortions#reasons-for-abortion
Only 12% or less of people cited health reasons for an abortion.
The comment should not be downvoted, it is accurate from a reputable source.
Question for you. When there are shortages on organ donor lists that will cause people to die, should the government be able to compel heathy individuals to donate organs they don’t need? What about for blood shortages?
This isn’t a question, it’s a setup for a copypasta. You should be ashamed but you won’t be.
Its a probing question to find out where the moral line is. It is a ridiculous proposal for sure, but it is basically the same ask as forcing a woman to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
Not really, it’s not a statement geared to generate any meaningful discussion. Just another way to kill nuance and make online forums more hostile.
Thought lemmy was resistant to it but I guess not.
I don’t think you actually do want an nuanced discussion, but here you go.
Let’s start by acknowledging that everyone has different morals which makes basing rules of law on morals a difficult proposal. But let’s say that rules for a fair and just society usually come down to that one’s rights ends where someone else’s begins. Maybe you disagree with this, but I’d say it is a pretty basic standard to make things fair.
So in the abortion debate, the opinion of whether or not the unborn have any rights in society. Some people will say no, that until you are a living breathing human, you are not a part of society and its rules. To theses people, the abortion debate ends there. The unborn have no rights so abortion is justified.
Some people believe that the unborn have just as many rights as anyone else, so then my proposed scenerio starts to come into play. If we can force women to give up bodily autonomy in favor another life, then why not enact similar rules to save others in society as well.
Now, you might say, “hold on a minute, I think that the unborn actually has more rights because they are among the most vulnerable in society and can’t live unless they have some rights over the mother’s body.” Well, in that case then my scenario does seem pretty silly, and to some extent that makes sense, as there are plenty of laws that center around the welfare of children, but none that force specific people to give up bodily autonomy in the same way that forced pregnancy does. I would also expect people in this camp to support laws to support children in need by providing food, housing, and other support they need. So in my opinion, if you support abortion bans but don’t support laws that help take of children in need, then you are a hypocrite, especially since social support comes in the form that doesn’t force any individual to not have control over their own body. Now a lot of GOP politicians seem to fall in this category, so my scenario is aimed directly at them.
Okay, so say you support the rights of the unborn as well as favor societal structures to also help children in need. This at least I can understand, but I would still say that abortion bans are misguided because they usually end up disproportionately affecting people without a lot of means in the first place and do nothing to address the reasons that women actually get abortions. I would say that if you can start by addressing those things with things like free and easy access to birth control, financial compensation, and fostering environments that teach consent so woman can feel safe turning down sex that can lead to pregnancy. But to try none of those and jump straight to punishing women seems like supporting cruelty in the face of better options.
I look forward to your nuanced response.
It’s not about bodily autonomy and so I reject the premise of your comparison. But to further throw you askew I do support mandatory vaccination. The answer as with so many things is “it depends on the situation”.
It’s good to have principles but it’s also important to live in the real world and understand when there are exceptions because there are exceptions to every rule and only fundamentalists disagree with that.
Only sith deal in absolutes.
But it is about bodily autonomy. You are advocating to force people to use their bodies against their will. And most people who support these policies don’t ever have to worry about it happening to them.
You are right that the real world needs exceptions or compromises. I’ll just never understand that why we need to compromise on the rights of the “unborn” vs enacting policies that would do a lot of good for those that are living and suffering instead that doesn’t force people into losing choices over their own bodies.
I’m insisting that they not murder their unborn child because they failed to use protection or didn’t contemplate that sex makes babies. Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with it. You sacrifice your bodily autonomy to an extent when you get pregnant. That ends when the child is born.
So do you support abortion in cases of rape where the woman didn’t choose to have sex?
Not that it matters of course. As we see the reality of anti abortion laws generally push for few or no exceptions, so rape victims have to continue enduring trauma for something they have now control in.
If you asked me how to really reduce abortions, then I would suggest comprehensive sex education, along with free and easy access to contraception to everyone, as well fostering environments that respect consent so women can feel safe saying no. Again, after all of that I’d still draw my line that gives women over the rights to their bodies. But to support outlawing abortion before any of those things just seems like supporting cruelty in the face of more effective options.
Yes as I’ve said many places and I probably should have been more clear in my original comment there should always be exceptions for rape, incest or when the mother’s health is in life threatening risk.
I’ll even go one further than you did and I would say that we should make contraception free and just pass it out like candy and I don’t just mean condoms I mean all types. Not reduced cost. Totally free. I’m pro-life and that would reduce abortions tremendously. Most pro life people are not extremists or anti-contraception.
I’m also happy to pay higher taxes to provide prenatal care and I support Universal health Care in general. Medicare for all.
You didn’t “go one further” than me, it sounds like we both are advocating for free and easy access to contraception. Either way I’m glad you support that at least.
You say that most pro life people aren’t extremists, but the ones that write the abortion ban laws seem to lean into the extremes, so by supporting them you are supporting those extreme positions. And even when the laws still have exceptions, those with means can go get an abortion elsewhere for whatever reason they want. So the laws primarily effect those who probably didn’t have the means to get other types of birth control as well. And in some cases people who actually want to have babies but need to suffer because these laws can prevent care because of government intervention between health care providers and patients.
You say yourself that there are other methods of reducing abortion, so why advocate for the one that seems less effective and promotes cruelty?
So if someone is on the pill at gets pregnant it meets your approval for an abortion? If they are using condoms and still get pregnant it meets your approval for an abortion? Rhythm method? Pulling out? Where do you draw the line and why do you get to decide? I don’t think many people are using abortion as birth control. It’s usually economic pressure, and sometimes health issues. I am a woman who had a bunch of kids and wouldn’t abort but outlawing abortion has had no good consequences anywhere, anytime, for anyone. Just make contraception free and safe, that is what actually reduces abortion. Making it illegal just harms women.
That sounds like a rule to me. Which means it has an exception. Which is a contradiction for the rule.
Welcome to the limitations of pure logic friend. There are limits to pure reason as Immanuel Kant observed.
Kant was full of shit. He whole philosophy is defeated the moment a non-human animal cares for its young. His fault for trying to prove Christianity was true.
In any case some of us care about what is true and what is not, which includes using the badic tools of logic. This is why there are no conservative intellectuals, when they lose the game they throw the board.
Removed by mod
It’s indicative of the lack of of prefiguration in regards to feminism and postmodernism. The base has become complacent in its malaise. The structure is unyielding in its control of social dynamics. And the superstructure busies itself with intellectual derailment.
That being said, I have no idea what I’m talking about.
Whatcha out, folks… he’s copy-pasta-ing theory like it applies to reality.
Username checks out.