Men like epics and unique stories. Women like Harry Potter, kids movies, and sappy stories. Also note the distribution of films, men like older films, women have only 3/20 films before 2000 and 1/20 before 1990. Whereas men only have 3/20 films post 2000 and 15/20 are before 1990. Media has been captured and corporatized to constantly pander to women and the results show.
The recency bias might be a product of female consensus seeking. Women aren’t as interested in older things because women require the social and cultural clout that comes with engaging newer, more global media.
This is also why women are natural enemies of nationalism.
Everything you said after your first sentence is wrong, but that first one is very important. You'll notice that: Titanic, 50 Shades of Gray, and Sex In The City are popularly acclaimed by women, and aren't anywhere in this list. Recency bias is part of consensus thinking, and an older consensus just isn't necessarily ever useful given new and emerging environmental threats.
Women are never enemies of Nationalism, and Nationalism has a wildly important role in women being the starting point of families and communities. The social fabric that makes up a nation must be woven by women, and protected & ordered by men.
Women are necessary for every movement and ideology because reproduction is necessary for every movement and ideology. But the psychology of women is a different matter entirely, and it can obviously be more or less hostile/conducive to a movement or ideology.
In the case of nationalism, women’s widespread advocacy for immigration and globalism is more than enough proof that they are, on average, enemies of nationalism. I’m not sure why you are so stupid as to disagree with this. I assume you’ve seen where voting projections fall in the absence of women. Are you struggling to understand how generalizations work?
I don't see women's psychology as pro-immigration and pro-globalism. In several European countries the populist right turned immigration into a women's safety issue, and the numbers of opposition to immigration match men's numbers. This is not a result of biology, but of psychological conditioning and heavy propaganda.
Women are being taught that globalism gives them community, and that immigrants are like infants. That is the psychological effect at play related to biology. Women don't have an innate out-preference. If anything, it's the opposite. But the infantilization of foreigners is what aligns them politically on the issue.
Men like epics and unique stories. Women like Harry Potter, kids movies, and sappy stories. Also note the distribution of films, men like older films, women have only 3/20 films before 2000 and 1/20 before 1990. Whereas men only have 3/20 films post 2000 and 15/20 are before 1990. Media has been captured and corporatized to constantly pander to women and the results show.
The recency bias might be a product of female consensus seeking. Women aren’t as interested in older things because women require the social and cultural clout that comes with engaging newer, more global media.
This is also why women are natural enemies of nationalism.
Everything you said after your first sentence is wrong, but that first one is very important. You'll notice that: Titanic, 50 Shades of Gray, and Sex In The City are popularly acclaimed by women, and aren't anywhere in this list. Recency bias is part of consensus thinking, and an older consensus just isn't necessarily ever useful given new and emerging environmental threats.
Women are never enemies of Nationalism, and Nationalism has a wildly important role in women being the starting point of families and communities. The social fabric that makes up a nation must be woven by women, and protected & ordered by men.
Women are necessary for every movement and ideology because reproduction is necessary for every movement and ideology. But the psychology of women is a different matter entirely, and it can obviously be more or less hostile/conducive to a movement or ideology.
In the case of nationalism, women’s widespread advocacy for immigration and globalism is more than enough proof that they are, on average, enemies of nationalism. I’m not sure why you are so stupid as to disagree with this. I assume you’ve seen where voting projections fall in the absence of women. Are you struggling to understand how generalizations work?
I don't see women's psychology as pro-immigration and pro-globalism. In several European countries the populist right turned immigration into a women's safety issue, and the numbers of opposition to immigration match men's numbers. This is not a result of biology, but of psychological conditioning and heavy propaganda.
Women are being taught that globalism gives them community, and that immigrants are like infants. That is the psychological effect at play related to biology. Women don't have an innate out-preference. If anything, it's the opposite. But the infantilization of foreigners is what aligns them politically on the issue.