I noticed an article in the Financial Times about a growing divide between young women and young men. Young women are  increasingly leftist, and young men are increasingly conservative. Surveys of young men and young women have found that young men are more conservative on abortion and LGBT than young women. And now young men are more religious than young women.

Now, I want to be clear in this post that I am not criticizing all women. I am criticizing the majority of YOUNG WOMEN. Older women don’t usually have these problems, especially married older women.

First, let’s take a look at the previous article, from the far-left UK Independent:

An analysis of survey data from across the developing world had found that “a new global gender divide” is emerging. The analysis, conducted by the Financial Times’ John Burn-Murdoch, showed that the developed world’s young women have rapidly become more liberal. Young men, however, have either become more conservative (as in the US) or been much slower to become more progressive (as in the UK). Gen Z, Burn-Murdoch concluded, is “two generations, not one.”

[…]Quoting similar figures to those in the FT, and noting that political views have become more tightly bound to personal identity, a Washington Post editorial warned that members of Gen Z will struggle to pair off romantically.

Young men, statistically speaking, are more likely to side with the weak against the strong. Since abortion harms unborn children, and divorce and same-sex marriage harm born children, men typically oppose these behaviors. But statistically speaking, young women more often side with the selfish adults against the children.

Naturally there are exceptions, but the statistics show that young men are more conservative on moral issues than young women. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the issue of abortion, which is really just about whether selfish adults can resort to murdering their own children in order to escape the consequences of no-commitment sex.

In September 2024, Gallup explained how young men and young women view abortion:

For this, Gallup reviewed 24 questions from its trends archive that measure Americans’ beliefs or positions on widely debated policy-related issues, and that Gallup has asked frequently enough to produce sufficient sample sizes of young men and women across the three periods… On five of these, the percentage of young women holding the liberal position has increased by more than 15 points. These have to do with the environment, abortion and gun laws.

• Young women have become 18 points more likely to support broad abortion rights, saying abortion should be legal under any or most circumstances (rather than in only a few or no circumstances). Their preference for this position rose from 42% to 60% between 2008-2016 and 2017-2024.

The number for young men is much lower than 60% at only 48%!

So, what happens to young men when they take these traditional MALE positions on issues, and society disapproves of them? Well, they turn to God for vindication of their good moral views. If society won’t approve of young men for protecting the unborn from abortion, and protecting children from divorce and same-sex marriage, then young men will have to find their vindication somewhere else. And that somewhere else is God.

Here’s the latest from the far-left New York Times: (archived)

For the first time in modern American history, young men are now more religious than their female peers. They attend services more often and are more likely to identify as religious.

[…]Among Generation Z Christians, this dynamic is playing out in a stark way: The men are staying in church, while the women are leaving at a remarkable clip.

Church membership has been dropping in the United States for years. But within Gen Z, almost 40 percent of women now describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, compared with 34 percent of men, according to a survey last year of more than 5,000 Americans by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute.

To be accurate, I don’t think that young women have been more religious than men. If you look at the kinds of books that young women tend to read, it’s more about comfort and life enhancement. They are not looking to get their orders from God. They are looking to get their desires met by God. And you can see that coming out in the new trends of “manifesting” that is so popular with young women.

By contrast, young men are more likely to turn to apologetics, science, history and theology. Young women were only “spiritual”, they were not looking to sacrifice themselves in order to serve God. You can see this by looking at what books young women and men read. Young women tend to read people like Rachel Hollis,  Rachel Held Evans, and Sarah Young. Young men see religion as being about their duties to others. They read people like J. Warner Wallace, Frank Turek and Sean McDowell. They want to learn how to tell people the truth, and tell people right and wrong. They want to lead in moral and spiritual areas. They want to make the world a better place for the weakest people.

How did this happen? Well, we have had generation after generation of pietistic Christian parents and pietistic Christian pastors who thought that it was the height of chivalry to only apply the Bible to young men, and never to young women. Young men need to be “challenged”, but never young women. People acted as if women had some sort of hotline to God through their emotions, and could never be judged for any of their questionable policy preferences and choices.

My question for you is this: do you think that these pietistic parents and pietistic pastors will finally stop asking the question “Where are all the good men?” and start asking a much better question “Where are all the good women?” Because I can tell you right now, conservative religious men are not going to be interested in dating or marrying these secular leftist young women.

Marriage is a huge risk for young men, in a world of no-fault divorce, biased divorce courts and feminized public schools. Good young men are not going to take those risks just to give secular leftist young women their “happily ever after” once they tire of “having fun” with hot bad boys, and want to settle down. And no amount of shaming and blaming is going to force good men to take those risks.

By the way, I’ve noticed that a lot of good young men are now seeking out friendships with more traditional older women. They are looking for sanity, and validation for their good moral and religious views. That’s not surprising. They’ll go where they are respected.

I had a funny conversation with my doctor at my last annual check-up. He said that the Biden-Harris regime’s COVID views came from “evidence”, and opposition to the Biden-Harris regime’s views came from “social media”. Well, we are finding out a lot of new things now that the Republicans are in charge. Let’s find out below which side was spreading their views with social media.

Here’s the article from Daily Signal:

Based on extensive investigations and sworn testimony, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight exposed how the Biden-Harris administration used a $900 million public relations campaign to influence how Americans understood and responded to the administration’s COVID-19 policies.

The public relations campaign became a tool for flawed narratives. Despite the administration’s promises to “follow the science,” the evidence clearly showed that the administration prioritized managing people’s perceptions over public transparency.

Big Tech social media and search engines were involved:

The October 2024 subcommittee report also unveiled a textbook example of how federal officials used taxpayer dollars to engage platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Google to advance their policy agenda. The report proved that these public officials relied upon selective data to shape public opinion that was not, in fact, supported by the existing scientific evidence.

The key point is the assertion that the COVD vaccine prevents a person from being infected by another person. The FDA was not convinced that it could prevent transmission:

The administration pursued this aggressive PR campaign despite the Food and Drug Administration’s own determination on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. When the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on Dec. 11, 2020, it explicitly stated that it could not affirm that the vaccine could prevent COVID-19 transmission: “At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.”

The FDA repeated this message in issuing its emergency use authorizations for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 18, 2020, and the Janssen vaccine on Feb. 27, 2021.

This information should have been given to people, but what we actually heard from the Biden-Harris was something else. But that’s not the approach that the Biden-Harris regime took.

Instead, they said this:

Nonetheless, in March 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky declared that vaccinated persons “do not carry” the virus. In September 2021, falsely insisting that the pandemic was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” President Joe Biden announced a series of unprecedented federal vaccine mandates that would have affected an estimated 100 million Americans.

Remarkably, in the teeth of mounting evidence, including the personal experiences of millions of Americans, the administration’s continuous messaging overstated vaccine effectiveness. It was not until January 2022 that the United States Supreme Court halted most of the mandates.

And they spread this message of “overstating vaccine effectiveness” on social media, which was very convincing to many people who formed their opinions from social media, and not from evidence:

Big Tech actively censored views critical of administration policy from private citizens and even other public officials. This became clear when, on July 4, 2023, in Missouri v. Biden, a federal court held that the Biden administration colluded with and coerced social media platforms to censor dissenting viewpoints on COVID-19—“a massive attack” in an apparent violation of the First Amendment.

This was later confirmed when, on Aug. 26, 2024, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote a letter to Congress in which he stated: “In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration when we didn’t agree.”

I think there is a good lesson here about whether we should form our views based on what we see in the culture. It’s possible for powerful people to harness mainstream news media, social media, Big Tech search engines, etc. and give us claims that are not supported by scientific evidence. The problem with the government doing it is that they do it with our money. They don’t have any money of their own. And remember, secular leftists don’t have any rational grounding for human rights in their accidental universe. So don’t expect them to allow free speech that is critical of their views.