logo
How the war of the sexes is changing politics forever

How the war of the sexes is changing politics forever

Yahoo26-05-2025
In his 1845 novel Sybil, Benjamin Disraeli coined the term 'two nations' to refer to the divide between the rich and the poor. But in British politics today, increasingly the two nations are men and women.
The easiest way to predict how someone voted at this month's local elections was their sex. On the Left, nearly 60 per cent of Green voters were female. On the Right, three out of five Reform voters were male. Nor is this purely a British phenomenon. Political divergence between men and women is a worldwide trend, detectable in the United States, Germany, South Korea and beyond.
In Britain, as elsewhere, the gender divide is particularly extreme among the young, notably Gen Z born between 1997-2010. In the 2024 general election, men under 25 were more than twice as likely to vote Reform as young women. Young women, in turn, were almost twice as likely to vote Green as young men.
The new divide is all the more remarkable in that it inverts a norm that has existed since universal suffrage. After they gained the vote in 1918, women – who tended to be more religious and socially conservative – were a reliable bulwark of Tory support. Had only women voted, the Conservatives would have won every general election from 1950 to 1992. Not until 2017 were women more likely than men to vote for Labour.
Now, global political gender dynamics have been transformed. Women have not merely moved to the Left of men; in many countries, the voting gap between the sexes is now larger than ever before.
'Generations tend to move together – not go in different directions, across gender lines,' says Prof Bobby Duffy from King's College London. 'This is a new development. There's a very unusual trend of a split within a cohort, Gen Z.'
Traditionally, age and class were the two main cleavages in British politics, explains Luke Tryl, the UK director of the polling company More in Common. Now, these have been replaced by two new interrelated divides: gender and education.
Today, 57 per cent of UK higher education students are female. There are now four female graduates for every three male graduates.
Differing levels of education are driving the sexes apart at the ballot box. Young people almost invariably lean well to the Left of older generations. But Reform is now the most popular party among non-graduate young men: 26.1 per cent of men under 25 without a degree support the party. Just 10.7 per cent of young men with a degree support Reform.
Yet only about half the gender divide is explained by women attending university in greater numbers, Tryl estimates. The other half is rooted in different cultural and social attitudes. Even when young men are as well-educated as women, and earn as much, they still tend to be more Right wing.
The contrast can be explained by differing priorities. Men tend to be anti-immigration, perhaps because working-class men feel particularly under threat from low-skilled migration. Men are also generally less motivated by climate concerns.
The #MeToo movement, and feminism more broadly, are sharply polarising issues too. Indeed, by some metrics young men are more anti-feminist than older cohorts. Worldwide, the pollsters Ipsos found, 57 per cent of Gen Z men agree that 'we have gone so far in promoting women's equality that we are discriminating against men', compared with 44 per cent of male baby boomers.
'There's possibly a backlash among younger men,' says Rosie Campbell, a professor of politics at King's College London and an expert in voting behaviour. 'This attitude to gender equality is something new.'
For all the focus on young men shifting Right, women have shifted Left by at least as much. 'Young women have moved to the Left over a very long period – it's happening more in every generation,' Campbell explains. The rise in female education and employment, and declining religiosity, has driven women to the Left. Being unmarried is also more correlated with having Left-wing views for women than for men.
Increasingly gendered media consumption threatens to exacerbate these divides. For most of democratic history, men and women have largely used the same mainstream news sources.
No longer. The Joe Rogan Experience, a podcast by an American comedian and mixed martial arts commentator, rallied young men to Donald Trump in the US election. His listeners supported Trump over Kamala Harris by a margin of two to one. The Joe Rogan Experience is also top of the podcast charts in the UK; around 80 per cent of listeners are male, with the majority under 35.
Even the types of media that people consume are gendered. YouTube and podcasts are more popular among men; social media, including Instagram, has particularly strong appeal to women.
'If you're a young woman, the algorithm thinks that you're going to [vote] Green. If it sends you anything about politics, it might be on that side,' Campbell observes. 'And vice versa for young men.'
The struggling economy multiplies such differences. The poor jobs market encourages men and women alike to see progress as a zero-sum game, in which opportunities for one gender come at the expense of the other. 'When you have more economic pressure on cohorts, it does sharpen the sense of division within them,' Duffy reflects.
This divide is being seen around the world. In the US last November, Kamala Harris won women voters by 8 per cent. This advantage was more than cancelled out by Trump winning male voters by 14 per cent.
The same trend was detectable in three other countries this year. In Germany, in February, the Right-wing populists AfD won 27 per cent of men aged under 25 but only 15 per cent of young women, Ansgar Hudde of the University of Cologne has found. Die Linke ('The Left') won 35 per cent of females under 25, but just 16 per cent of males.
In Canada, Mark Carney's victory in April was powered by the female vote. Even in an election dominated by Trump, the parties were polarised along gender lines. The gender voting gap is likely to have been the largest in Canadian history, says Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant from Queen's University, Ontario. A poll before the vote showed the Conservatives leading by five points among men while the centre-left Liberals had a 25 per cent lead among women – an overall 30 per cent gender gap.
Women were central to Anthony Albanese's re-election in Australia this month: pre-election polls found that men aged 18-34 were 10 per cent more likely to vote Conservative. The strongest predictor of seats with a higher Green vote was a greater number of university-educated women, Dr Intifar Chowdhury from Flinders University has found.
Nowhere is the gender divide more extreme than South Korea. There, on top of the underlying forces driving the sexes apart elsewhere, two particularly toxic issues deepen the political gender chasm.
South Korea has the largest gender pay gap in the developed world – 29 per cent – creating anger among highly educated women. Men, in turn, are angry by the requirement to do 18 months' military service.
'Especially after the 2008 economic crisis, you have huge competition for jobs,' says Heejung Chung, who grew up in South Korea and is professor of work and employment at King's College London. 'Opportunities for young people in general, both men and women, have significantly declined.
'Women are going into higher education in higher numbers. A lot of young men feel like, 'We're actually in a worse state than women.''
In the 2022 presidential election, the Right-wing candidate Yoon Suk Yeol particularly courted young men. Yoon claimed that men were being treated like 'potential sex criminals', and denied the existence of systemic discrimination against women.
While men and women over 40 showed minimal voting differences, Yoon won 59 per cent of men under 30, yet just 34 per cent of young women. As president, Yoon discontinued funding for programmes aimed at addressing sexism and removed the term 'gender equality' from the school ethics curriculum.
And at 10.27pm on December 3 last year, Yoon declared martial law.
Four days after the declaration, a nationwide rally demanded Yoon's impeachment. Yet crowds were overwhelmingly female. Only about one tenth of all pro-impeachment protestors were men. The greatest determinant of how people viewed the most seismic event in South Korea since the introduction of democracy was their gender.
Now, on June 3, these divisions will surface once again. South Korea is holding its next presidential election, brought forward by Yoon's removal from office. The vote is likely to see a similar gender gap on Left-Right lines to previous elections, Chung believes.
South Korea offers a stark warning, pointing to a future in Britain and around the world in which, rather than young people of both sexes prospering together, they increasingly see their interests at war with each other.
The consequences of such gender polarisation go far beyond politics. A chasm between the sexes in the ballot box is also bad for the future of humanity itself.
Today, South Korea has the world's lowest birth rate: just 0.72 births per woman. This is almost certainly the lowest birth rate in any country in peacetime in human history. Births are even less common in Seoul: the capital's birth rate is 0.55, the lowest of any city in the world.
Korea's population is projected to halve by the year 2100, creating a financial and demographic crisis. The government has spent more than $250 billion on programmes to encourage people to start families, to little avail. One third of women say they do not want to get married, compared with only 13 per cent of men. Remarkably, only 34 per cent of women aged 25-29 say that they want to have children.
'More women are saying that having a marriage or having children is not a prerequisite for a good life,' Chung observes. 'That makes men angrier.' It turns out that men and women divided by politics have little wish to couple up – or to reproduce.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gavin Newsom and Zohran Mamdani can bring about the ruin of California and New York
Gavin Newsom and Zohran Mamdani can bring about the ruin of California and New York

New York Post

timea minute ago

  • New York Post

Gavin Newsom and Zohran Mamdani can bring about the ruin of California and New York

It was in December 1777 that the great Scottish economist Adam Smith learned of General Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga. Smith's correspondent said that he feared Smith's own nation of Great Britain, was ruined. The economist's reply was: 'There is a great deal of ruin in a nation.' Ever since that quote became famous, it has been both consoling and misleading. Consoling because it is true that while some people always claim the sky is falling down, more often than not, it stays up perfectly nicely. Adam Smith's own nation more than survived the defeat at Saratoga. Advertisement At the same time, the quote is misleading. Nations cannot cope with an infinite amount of ruin. Cities and states can tolerate even less. In our own country, there are many politicians who think that US cities in particular can put up with almost anything. Take Governor Gavin Newsom of California. In recent days, he has been trying to 'win' the internet. That's because, having failed at his job of governing an actual state, he seems to have decided to become chief troll online. Democrat pundits are 'LOLing' all over the place at Newsom's alleged brilliance in aping the internet manners of President Trump. Advertisement It would be a lot more fun if the situation in Gavin's own state were sunnier. As it is, while Newsom plays cute online, California is in a disastrous state. Just this year, it has suffered ruinous wildfires, causing billions of dollars worth of damage. And even if the areas of Los Angeles that burned to the ground are rebuilt, good luck to anyone trying to get home insurance. Then there are the riots — stoked along by Democrat politicians, who seem to think that it is the natural-born right of every illegal alien to riot against ICE and other law-enforcement officers and wave the flags of Mexico and other countries to demonstrate just how many rights they think they should get in America. Advertisement All this comes as the state of California still struggles to recover from the disastrous COVID-19 lockdown policies that Newsom tried to install in his state. For everyone but himself, naturally. Perhaps Newsom and the sycophants in his party think that some winsome online behavior will bring back the 2.1 million registered Democrats who seem to have been lost by the party in the years between 2020 and 2024. But the reality is that Newsom's policies — from taxation to homelessness and law and order — have seen a great exodus of the people the state needs most. In recent years, California has lost even more wealthy millennials than New York has. Some 10,000 millennial households bringing in more than $200,000 a year fled California in a single year. A figure almost twice the size of the exodus from New York of the same demographic in the same year. Of course, in part, that is because of the genius of the federal system in this country that makes moving between states so relatively easy. Advertisement A British person afflicted by high taxes and high crime cannot just up sticks and move to a different jurisdiction in their country. It's all going to be the same. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters But if California or New York decides to tax the successful beyond their endurance and fails to give them a decent quality of life in return, then Florida or Texas will never look so appealing. That is a fact that Democrats in New York, as much as in California, should keep at the top of their minds. Even as New York is considering the possibility of electing a high-taxing, radical socialist mayor, there are people who say that it is an empty threat that people will actually leave this city. These are the same people who seemed to think that the Golden State would be endlessly attractive, even if there were syringes all over the sidewalks and the place was on fire. The same people seem to think that you can test and test New York as much as you like, and it doesn't matter because people will still want to live here. Tell that to the people who had to live through the city's downturn in the 1970s. In fact, tell that to the citizens of the numerous cities in this country that have managed to fall through the floor. Advertisement There was a time when Detroit seemed like the city of the future. There was a time when St. Louis seemed like a good bet. But these places should be reminders that what seems enduring can in fact be stress-tested to death in front of your eyes. I mentioned the country of Adam Smith, and it is still worth looking to it for a lesson in what could happen here. The left-wing Labour government in the UK came into power last year, promising to tax the rich to fill its fiscal deficits. Of course, it hasn't worked. But the threat has certainly chased money out of the country. The UK is expected to lose some 16,500 millionaires this year alone. An uptick of over 50% just in the year before. All driven away by the brilliant tax policies of a government that doesn't even say it is socialist. Advertisement What Zohran Mamdani and Co. would do to this city is orders of magnitude worse than anything Labour has achieved in the UK. But there is another lesson still to learn. Which is that, having chased the wealthy out of the UK, the Labour government is now suddenly hoping to woo them back. They are learning in real time the old conservative lesson that it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. Easier to chase people away than to give them the long-term confidence that would be needed to encourage them back. Which returns me to Adam Smith. There may be a great deal of ruin in a nation. But there isn't an endless amount of ruin in a state. Much less of a city. Come November, New Yorkers should remember that.

Western Nations Are Taking a Key Step Toward a Two-State Solution
Western Nations Are Taking a Key Step Toward a Two-State Solution

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Western Nations Are Taking a Key Step Toward a Two-State Solution

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. France, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Malta all say they are preparing to recognize a state of Palestine at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in September. They would join another 147 UN countries that already do so. In some senses, the move is symbolic: It will not change the realities on the ground in the Middle East, at least not in the short term. But it is a major step nonetheless. No Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process' is currently under way, the countries pledging recognition noted in their statements. This is because Israel refuses to speak with the diplomatic representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization. In effect, Israel has held the PLO and its subsidiaries—the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Fatah political party—responsible for the actions of all Palestinians, including the PLO's extremist archrival, Hamas. (The United States, for its part, has never had a bilateral relationship with the Palestinians.) The struggle for Palestinian statehood has been long and arduous. The PLO and PA, to be sure, have sometimes gotten in their own way. In the West Bank, the PA has overseen a corrupt system that leaves little space for civil society. And the PLO has squandered several potential opportunities to pursue statehood, especially an overture in 2008 by then–Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. But both groups have maintained a commitment to negotiation over violence, and have honored the 1993 recognition of Israel by Yasser Arafat, the PLO's former leader. The Western nations' formal acknowledgment of a Palestinian state under the leadership of the PLO will boost the idea that this kind of diplomacy, rather than the armed struggle of Hamas, is the path that can actually result in Palestinian independence and citizenship for the stateless millions in the occupied territories. [From the December 2024 issue: My hope for Palestine] International recognition will do as much to rebuke Hamas's maximalist demands as it will those of the Israeli right, dealing a blow to expansionist aspirations in the West Bank, the only territory that has any realistic chance of becoming a Palestinian state. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been characterized by a basic asymmetry: The international recognition of Jewish national rights in Palestine has never been matched by a demand for Palestinian national rights. This was the case as far back as the British government's 1917 Balfour Declaration and the British mandate for Palestine, which took effect several years later. Palestinians may have had an opportunity in 1947 to create their state through a UN partition resolution. In retrospect, they should have accepted the proposal, but their rejection at the time is understandable. Jews made up about 33 percent of the population and owned a mere 6 percent of privately held land in Mandatory Palestine; the UN partition resolution would have allotted the proposed Jewish state more than 56 percent of the territory. Two decades later—after multiple wars—Israel declared itself a state that would come to control the entire territory, including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all of which have populations that are majority Palestinian Arab. Roughly 800,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in 1947 and 1948, followed by another 300,000 in 1967. Almost none have been allowed to return. In 1968, Palestinians resurrected an independence movement that wrested decision making away from Egypt and other Arab countries that had been humiliated in the Six-Day War. Their crushing defeat gave Palestinians a measure of self-determination through the establishment of a renewed autonomous PLO. In the '80s, the PLO evolved into the vehicle of a drastically reduced Palestinian aspiration: the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all territories Israel had occupied since 1967. ​​The First Intifada, or 'uprising,' against Israeli rule in the occupied territories, which began in 1987, gave the PLO an opportunity to greatly expand its presence there, but it also seeded a new group of rivals, the Muslim fundamentalists of Hamas. A breakthrough seemed possible in the aftermath of the Cold War. In 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin affirming that, on behalf of the Palestinian people, the PLO recognized Israel and its right to exist free from attacks and threats. Rabin responded with a letter to Arafat recognizing the PLO as a legitimate interlocutor and undertaking to negotiate with it. But he didn't recognize a state of Palestine, and the 1993 Oslo Accords with Israel did not specify the goal of Palestinian statehood or acknowledge the Palestinians' right to a state. In the summer of 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a summit at Camp David. Accounts vary on what Israel, then led by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, offered. But the Palestinians who attended came away convinced that they were being asked to accept an archipelago of quasi-independent Bantustans within a greater Israel. Because of an internal leadership crisis, among other failings, the Palestinians presented no detailed counteroffer. And Clinton entirely backed Israel. The violent Second Intifada against Israeli rule in the occupied territories began on September 28, 2000. Nonetheless, negotiations resumed that fall. In late December, Clinton unveiled what is still the most reasonable framework yet proposed for an agreement that would end the conflict. But Israel suspended the negotiations pending elections early in 2001. The right-wing former General Ariel Sharon became prime minister, and the talks were not resumed. In subsequent years, some hopeful signs for Palestinian statehood persisted. In 2002, President George W. Bush endorsed establishing a Palestinian state, and his administration voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1397, which, for the first time, explicitly called for two states 'side by side within secure and recognized borders.' Palestinian divisions intensified, however, after the 2005–06 elections resulted in the acrimonious pairing of a Fatah/PLO leader, Mahmoud Abbas, with a Hamas-dominated Parliament. In 2007, Hamas violently seized control of Gaza, precipitating a split with the West Bank that continues to this day. [Jeffrey Goldberg: Sinwar's march of folly] The Palestinians had one more potential chance at statehood through negotiations. In 2008, Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, offered an agreement that the PLO, led by Abbas, considered broadly reasonable. However, Abbas doubted that Olmert was speaking on behalf of Israel, or even his own government, given that most members of his cabinet reportedly opposed his proposal. Moreover, the Palestinian negotiators could not get anything in writing. The deal also included Palestinian concessions on issues such as refugees, and Abbas ran the political risk of being seen to accept concessions while ultimately being left with nothing if Israel didn't follow through. Neither Olmert nor Abbas was willing to take the issue directly to the Israeli public, and the negotiations fizzled. Since that time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated the Israeli political scene and dedicated himself to preventing any movement toward Palestinian statehood. He exploited the rift between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, seeking to keep both in power and at each other's throats, and thereby unable to advance their respective visions of independence. The Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, betrayed the folly of this policy. But it also hardened the position of the Israeli right that to live next to any Palestinian state would be an intolerable security risk. In the nearly two years that war has raged in Gaza, Netanyahu has become ever more explicit in his refusal of a two-state solution. Just last month, he ruled out the prospect of Palestinian statehood, saying that it would only serve as a platform for the elimination of Israel. The Israelis claim that recognition would reward Hamas and terrorism. But the opposite is true. Pretty much the only thing Hamas and Fatah agree on is that they are all Palestinians. Other than that, the disagreements are almost total: The PLO is a secular national movement that still seeks a negotiated peace with Israel through diplomacy, and to establish a small Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Hamas is an Islamist party and militia that wants a theocratic Muslim government in not just the occupied territories but also what is now Israel. In Palestinian politics, the binary is so stark that virtually anything that strengthens one group weakens the other. Recognizing a Palestinian state under the authority of the PLO harms Hamas and rewards the patient diplomacy and commitment to peace of its rivals in Fatah. Already, the PLO has benefited from an apparently minor change in its status at the UN in 2012, from 'observer' to 'non-member observer state.' This gave it standing at the International Criminal Court and suggests what international recognition—something Israel cannot take away—can accomplish: the potential protection of key multilateral instruments and institutions, and thus the potential frustration of Israeli ambitions for further annexation. While the world's eyes have been fixed on the horrors of war in Gaza, far-right Israeli officials, led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have effectively taken charge of the West Bank, where they are stoking conflict by encouraging right-wing settlers to confront Palestinian villagers. When Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency last year, Smotrich celebrated, saying that the opportunity had come to annex the West Bank. The Israeli military has displaced 40,000 Palestinians in the territory, according to the United Nations, and extremist settlers have continued to harass and attack villagers. International recognition of Palestinian statehood could seriously complicate Israel's designs on the West Bank. Britain has said that it will recognize Palestine if the Gaza war continues into September, but France and Canada appear focused on discouraging Israeli annexation in the West Bank. Each is sending a clear message to Israel: End the war in Gaza, and more important, do not expand formalized control of the West Bank, the only territory that could become a true state for Palestinians. Pushing back against Israeli annexation efforts is crucial to reviving the possibility of a two-state solution. Canada, Australia, Britain, France, and Malta are not asking or expecting Israel to withdraw from the West Bank tomorrow. But they clearly understand the danger that further settlement there poses to the Palestinian independence movement. Netanyahu and his allies know this too. Smotrich has his eyes firmly on annexation, having recently announced new settlements surrounding Jerusalem that he says will 'bury' any potential for a Palestinian state. The world must act as if a two-state solution is not merely necessary, but possible. International recognition of a Palestinian state is a key start. Without such a state alongside Israel, these two beleaguered peoples, the whole region, and the entire world will be sentenced to further decades, and possibly centuries, of bloodshed and oppression. Shrugging, walking away, and accepting this outcome cannot be an option. Article originally published at The Atlantic Solve the daily Crossword

Tens of thousands of European troops needed for Ukraine, union warns
Tens of thousands of European troops needed for Ukraine, union warns

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Tens of thousands of European troops needed for Ukraine, union warns

By Sabine Siebold BERLIN (Reuters) -European NATO leaders must not be naive when discussing a Ukraine peace force but face up to the reality that they would need to deploy tens of thousands of troops to the country for the long term, the head of Germany's soldiers' union said. U.S. President Donald Trump is seeking to broker peace between Moscow and Kyiv but has ruled out sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have both spoken in favour of troop deployments in a post-war settlement as part of a coalition of the willing, with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also signalling openness to German participation. Colonel Andre Wuestner, head of the German Armed Forces Association, on Thursday called on European leaders not to play down the military task but be honest about the challenges, even though any quick ceasefire seemed unlikely. "It won't be enough to have a handful of generals and smaller military units man a command post in Ukraine," Wuestner, whose organisation represents more than 200,000 active and retired soldiers, told Reuters. "From the very beginning, it must be made clear to Putin — and backed by international forces — that we are totally serious about security guarantees", he said. "Serious about supporting Ukraine, serious about securing a ceasefire, and serious about our response should Putin attempt another attack on Ukraine." A "bluff-and-pray" approach would be downright negligent and increase the risk of an escalation, the colonel warned. He estimated that each of the big countries in the coalition of the willing, such as Britain, France and Germany, would need to deploy at least 10,000 troops to Ukraine for the long run, posing a huge challenge to their already stretched and under-equipped forces. "The Europeans remain military dwarfs and are already struggling to meet the new NATO commitments they made at the last summit," Wuestner said. "Europe is still a long way from being able to defend itself independently." Therefore, there was an urgent need to finally speed up armament and strengthening the European pillar of NATO. Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store