The Cost of Women’s So-Called Liberation by Mrs Vera West

Although conservatives typically look at the rise of women’s liberation and feminism from the 1960s onwards in terms of social harms such as the destruction of the traditional family, there are other evils. One, is the increasing support for liberal policies such as welfarism, where women’s natural maternal instincts are manipulated by the elites to support policies not in their interest.
John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny, “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 107, 1999, pp. 1163-1198, reach the following conclusion based on research in the United States:

“This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870-1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.” (p. 1163)

The only change to this trend of liberalism among women voters came with the US election, but only among White (Anglo) women, who in a majority voted for Trump. All other ethno-racial groups (Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians) of women in a majority favoured Hillary Clinton.

The trend of women being more liberal and egalitarian than men was also observed in Sweden, itself now a multi-racial socialist totalitarian state, in a paper by B. Ekehammar and J. Sidanius, “Sex Differences in Sociopolitical Attitudes: A Replication and Extension,” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 21, 1982, pp. 249–257:

“Sex differences in various aspects of sociopolitical ideology were studied with a sample of 783 Swedish high school students (median age = 18 years) from metropolitan Stockholm by use of the S6 Conservatism Scale. Males and females were compared with respect to six ideological dimensions: (1) general conservatism, (2) political-economic conservatism, (3) religion, (4) punitiveness, (5) social inequality and (6) racism. The results revealed statistically significant differences on all six dimensions showing females to be less generally conservative, less ‘capitalist’ oriented, less punitive, more egalitarian and less racist than males. However, in line with previous findings, females were found to be more religious than males. Furthermore, the results showed females to be more ideologically homogeneous than males. Despite these differences the attitude profiles and attitudes structures were quite similar for both sexes. There was no significant sex by social class interactions with respect to the socialpolitical attitude dimensions. In line with previous findings, females were found to be somewhat less interested in politics than males.” (p. 249)

Women also tend to be more out-group focussed than in-group focussed. K. Winterich (et al.), “Donation Behavior Toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 36, 2009.

“We investigate how two important social identities – gender identity and moral identity – result in differential donations to in-groups and out-groups. Results from three studies indicate that moral identity importance tends to increase donations to out-groups (Iraq, Indonesia) and not to in-groups (London, New Orleans). However, this occurs only for consumers with a feminine gender identity. For consumers with a masculine gender identity, moral identity importance increases donations to the in-group but not the out-group. Inclusion of Other in the Self (ISO) mediates the moderating role of gender identity on the effect of moral identity on in-group and out-group donations.”

T. Yamagishi and N. Mifune, “Social Exchange and Solidarity: In-Group Love or Out-Group Hate?” Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 30, 2009, pp. 229-237:

“Men exhibit a stronger tendency to favour the in-group over the out-group than women. We examined if this male-specific “coalitional psychology” represents in-group love or out-group hatred. One hundred and thirty-three college freshman played a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game with a member of their own group and a member of another group. Both groups consisted of the same sex participants. An in-group bias – cooperation at a higher level with the in-group than the out-group – based on expectations of cooperation from the in-group was observed for both men and women. When such expectations were experimentally eliminated, women did not show any in-group bias whereas men still exhibited an in-group bias. The male-specific in-group bias in this condition was found to be a product of intra-group cooperation rather than inter-group competition. These findings suggest that the male-specific coalitional psychology is catered more toward within-group solidarity than promotion of aggression against the out-group.”

Perhaps the ultimate explanation for all of this lies in evolutionary biology and neurology: B. Pakkenberg and H. J. Gundersen, “Neocortical Neuron Number in Humans: Effect of Sex and Age,” Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 384, 1997, pp. 312-320.

“Modern stereological methods provide precise and reliable estimates of the number of neurons in specific regions of the brain. We decided to estimate the total number of neocortical neurons in the normal human brain and to analyse it with respect to the major macro- and microscopical structural components, to study the internal relationships of these components, and to quantitate the influence of important physiological variables on brain structure. The 94 brains reported represent a consecutive collection of brains from the general Danish population. The average numbers of neocortical neurons were 19 billion in female brains and 23 billion in male brains, a 16% difference. In our study, which covered the age range from 20 years to 90 years, approximately 10% of all neocortical neurons are lost over the life span in both sexes. Sex and age were the main determinants of the total number of neurons in the human neocortex, whereas body size, per se, had no influence on neuron number. Some of the data presented have been analyzed by using new mathematical designs. An equation predicting the total neocortical neuron number in any individual in which sex and age are known is provided.”

Surprising, isn’t it?