How Women’s Equality In Democracies Changes Voting (And Everything Else)

The experiment with women’s suffrage, driven originally and sustained by Equality, is about a century old. Let’s look at one simple number.

Here from the US Census, June 2020, are the population counts of men and women:

Boys in blue, girls in pink. The story is much the same whichever year of data is used. Boys outnumber girls until about age 40, they stay the same until the mid 50s, then men start dying off faster, leaving a majority women.

There are no surprises here, and no indication of anything untoward.

The Census also estimates what percentage of each sex votes in federal elections (say, for President), but only by age buckets. Here (from CPS, November 2024 Supplement [Table 1: Reported Voting and Registration by Sex and Single Years of Age]. Numbers are calculated from eligible population and reported voters [in thousands]) are their estimates:

Women outvote men until they become equal about age 68, after which men take a lead. I linearly extrapolated the rates by sex by each age, assuming at the end at age 100 only 20% of each sex votes. The exact number, you will see, does not matter much. There will be other sources that have different estimates, of course, but I’m guessing not by much. And the signal is so big, it’s not likely to change a lot.

It’s now easy to estimate the total number of women and men voters by age. As we see here:

Women outnumber men at every age. Overall, women outvote men by just under 6.2 million. There is obviously some plus-or-minus to all this; however, we don’t need exact numbers. And recall: Trump was recorded as besting Kamala by only about 2.3 million votes. That 6.2 is a lot, even if there’s plenty of uncertainty in it.

Politicians in Our Democracies must pander (the cynical word) or promise (the campaign word) to voters, especially to majorities, which is how they get elected. Since women voters outnumber men at all ages, politicians on average must pander more to women. Thus what women want, on average, is what politicians will promise, and even sometimes give.

I say and emphasize on average. There are any number of exceptions. Due to the nature of the Electoral College, it depends where the women are. Some districts might see men outnumber and outvote women. Some women are highly traditional. Some voting choices are between traditional politicians only. And so on and so forth.

This is a slow on average. If instead of representation voting, via the Electoral College and of course for representatives, voting was more akin to a true democracy, with the nation voting as a whole for rulers and for (many) policies, that on average would turn into mighty fast.

With that kind of sizable advantage, women will largely get what they want. Not everywhere, not in all degree, but on average and in time.

What do women on average want? Here are only some answers. (Pointing out an exception is not an argument against on average.)

Women want the option to kill their children. After Roe was overturned, womenly (there is no misspelling) states aggressively moved to strengthen killing laws, even up to birth (and, as has been seen, sometimes even after). It’s not that most women, or even on average, will make use of legality of killings, but they want that option.

England and Wales, two places far gone into Equality, now lead the Western world in women killing their children, incidentally.

Women increasingly don’t want to have (live) children. Fertility rates plummet with women get what they want. France is moving to “to abolish concept of marital duty to have sex” (‘”By allowing such a right or duty to persist, we are collectively giving our approval to a system of domination and predation by husband on wife,” said the bill’s sponsor, Green MP Marie-Charlotte Garin.’). Even Xi Who Must Be Obeyed encourages women in politics, and China’s fertility rate is low.

Women want that the males who impregnate females not to have a say when the women arrange the killings, even though the children are half the males’ responsibility.

In the same vein, women want conception prevention medications, such as the mood- and body-altering “pill”, condemns and the like. Women, being women, must occational;y enjoy pregnancies, which many of them “feel” is unfair and a burden. Which, of course, it is. Women do not want to hear “tough luck” on this.

Women want to be treated better than men, retaining the privileges of the weaker sex (such as deference and soft replies) while collecting what they perceive as benefits accruing to the stronger sex, because they believe they are the Equal of men. Which they are not. Just as men are not the Equal of women. But we have many laws, and law-like regulations, that guarantee “equal pay for equal work”, which means women get more for less work, like in the military.

Women want out of marriages easily, and want to come away sitting nicely after. Divorce laws, such as “no fault”, are heavily weighted in favor of women here.

As has often been observed, single women come to believe the State is their “partner”, which is to say, a sort of husband. And they expect that partner to provide support. Endless laws and rules are bent in their favor because of this. Women are prime members of the Cult of Safety First!, as the covid panic proved, and look forward to enforcing “safety” rules.

Women are not the same as men, and so cannot want the same as men in all things. Here are some examples:

This headline is obviously on average, too.

Feminism equals wokeness, as Helen Andrews argues persuasively (video clip):

She points to surveys: ~2/3 men prioritize free speech, ~2/3 women prioritize inclusive society. Men lean “ethics of justice” (rules/facts), women “ethics of caring” (context/relationships/emotions).

Examples: James Damore fired not for facts but because it made women “feel bad.” Kavanaugh hearings: masculine side demanded evidence, feminine side focused on “she’s crying.”

Her take: When women predominate, politics/institutions tilt toward subjective feelings over objective rules—even if many women reject it (e.g., best Kavanaugh books by women critics).

Women do not enjoy criticism, and seek to ban it wherever possible.

Here is an old meme, which has a lot going for it:

Women are conformist, which is apt considering their nature. This trait works well when the two sexes are acting according to the natures, but one which fails badly when they are not, as in the covid panic, immigration, and o forth.

This also leads to what many call suicidal empathy. especially in childless women, and in a vengeance in those who are children and have killed their children. A woman published a piece in The Nation recently arguing against the imprisonment rapists (because they are mostly “minorities”). Women support unfettered “migration”, especially of groups they “feel” the most empathy for, much more than men.

Hilary Clinton has a new essay on empathy:

Subjective experience is real and it matters. It shapes how people interpret the world and move through it, but it’s also internal, private, and non-transferable. It tells you how something felt to someone, not necessarily what happened, why it happened, or what it means at scale. Shared reality is different. It’s external, it’s negotiated, it’s the space where claims are tested, compared, revised, and sometimes rejected. It’s the reason disagreement exists at all. It’s the thing we argue over precisely because none of us owns it outright.

For many women, depth of emotion is sufficient proof of the truth of whatever it is the emotion is about. This is a wonderful facility in mothers. It is deeply illogical most everywhere else, and causes the One Way Compassion Fallacy. For instance, women will say “We must have compassion for the man who pretends to be a woman”, forgetting compassion for them is callous disregard for that man’s family.

From the article “Why Young Women Moved Left While Young Men Stayed Sane“, we have pictures like these well known ones, describing women’s on average political attitudes:

And

Which leads to more women eschewing marriage and opting for the State as their perceived partner.

Then this, too:

Women are getting what they want, on average, where they have voting rights. This has the natural political consequences. Religious consequences, too. And will continue to do so.

Solution? Probably none. If put to a vote, women will not, an average, opt to take their franchise away. There will likely never be enough men to outvote women. Here is a hypothetical graph, assuming a 15% voting participation rate increase for men at all ages.

That brings men to the same numerical overall advantage, but women at older ages still outvote men. And these voting rates are close to 90% for younger voters, which seems far-fetched. Even if men could be persuaded to vote in these larger numbers, women’s rates would have to stay the same (or decrease). And that situations doesn’t seem likely. Especially because a good portion of men, probably a majority, also hold with Equality, and have grown used to its ways.

The men who gave us suffrage labored under the false theory of Equality. They ripped down Chesterton’s fence, separating the sexes, with vigor and glee. There is no putting it back up. Not by voting, anyway.

It will take the usual litany of bad times, which will cause some sort of crisis, and then comes dramatic shift. Meanwhile, it’s a slow but steady increase in size and scope of the Longhouse.

Oh, yes: beware the So’s Yer Old Man Fallacy.

Here are the various ways to support this work:

• Subscribe at Substack (paid or free)
• Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs
• Zelle: use email: matt@wmbriggs.com
• Buy me a coffee
• Paypal
• Other credit card subscription or single donations
• Hire me
• Subscribe at YouTube
• PASS POSTS ON TO OTHERS