Far More Women than Men Voted for Carney. Why? (thetyee.ca)

submitted 2 days ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Canada’s recent federal election suggests a growing gender divide in political preferences.

Polling indicated women voters leaned strongly toward the Liberals, while an increasing number of men — particularly younger men — gravitated toward the Conservatives.

This polarization was not simply a matter of partisan preference but reflected deeper social, cultural and economic realignments rooted in identity politics and diverging values.

The gender gap also mirrors patterns across western democracies, where far-right populist parties increasingly draw male support through nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-feminist narratives, while women — especially racialized and university-educated — opt for progressive parties promoting equality and social protection.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 50 points 2 days ago

You mean the guy who said women need housing so they can have babies before their biological clocks run out didn't get many women votes??

[-] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago

Shocking, I know.

It's actually sad that any women voted for him at all 🤷

[+] toastmeister@lemmy.ca -10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

With a 3 bedroom house in our largest cities going for 1.5m is he wrong, are our plummeting birth rates not largely due to housing prices?

You've also got the new housing minister saying prices shouldn't fall, so we got we wanted I guess, those women won't have kids; at least without splitting up bedrooms like a Hamilton basement.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You're missing the point. It's not that "biological clocks" are irrelevant, and it's not that housing doesn't affect family planning. The point is that the motivation behind housing affordability shouldn't be restoring/protecting a funcional utility of women.

There's no reason to single out women in the first place. A less dystopian statement would be something closer to what you said: families need housing affordability so they can realize whatever shape of family they dream of. If a gay couple wants to adopt two kids and three dogs, they also deserve affordability.

If you're not a woman or not attuned to sexism and heteronormativity in everyday speech, this might sound like nitpicking. But this kind of phrasing is a telling signal that foreshadows regressive policies.

[-] toastmeister@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 day ago

The point was made alongside the average age of a home buyer moving up significantly, which is now outside of child bearing age. So it highlights the damage caused.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

I know. Doesn't change anything regarding what I said.

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago

Offering women housing in exchange for producing babies sounds like something from the Handmaid's Tale. Housing affordability should be addressed because people want to own homes, not because the baby making machines aren't making babies.