Is it in a man's nature to be more conservative?

[The Journeyman]

Is being conservative in the general sense (political, cultural, social) more of a masculine trait? Excluding all religious entities.

I associate conservative thinking people with more masculine type thinking: establishing boundaries, maintaining cultural pride and prestige, keeping order and control, dominating potential threats. Whereas liberals tend to be more tolerant, forgiving, submissive to others' will.

[antonio]

For me being a liberal (at American sense) is a kind of crappy consequence of modern (since XVIII) education, not at all, a natural inclination of a classical educated men, which tend to bring the order into the chaos of Nature, including foreign, known strange beings, perceived as part of that impredictable Nature.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Is being conservative in the general sense (political, cultural, social) more of a masculine trait?

Men are more likely to vote for conservative political parties than women (look at any election).

Women are more likely to be a member of liberal cultural groups than men (pro-abortion groups, feminists, pro gay rights).

The statistics don't lie.

For me being a liberal (at American sense)

^The idea of liberal and conservative is different between Europe and America. Here in America liberal lumps many things together because of our two party state; Liberal means affirmative action, atheism, social/economic egalitarianism, increasing welfare spending, pro-abortion, feminists, gay rights etc.
^And in America conservative means the opposite of the above list.

[antonio]

Men are more likely to vote for conservative political parties than women (look at any election).

That's curious, because in real life, women tend to have a more suspicious mind.

Women are more likely to be a member of liberal cultural groups than men (pro-abortion groups, feminists, pro gay rights).
The statistics don't lie.

That's probably the cause: they tend also to feel sorry for themselves (feminists) or for people which dont deserve nothing but plain indiference.

[Agrippa]

This is hard to answer, because you have to define "conservative".

As a rule, women tend more towards conservative behaviour, but that doesn't have to mean they are "conservative politically" in the context of every thinkable society.

Women tend towards being more agreeable, try to avoid conflicts, radicalism, violence and war, hard measures and try to focus on the individuals, rather than structural considerations.

Typically women voted for conservative parties more often in the German Reich of the late 20's and 30's, because they were afraied of change and revolutionary tendencies. Males voted much more often for fringe parties, especially of the very left (Communists) and very right (German Nationalists, then NSDAP).

Even if women dislike foreigners and foreign races, they are less likely, unless they were born in a family or become a member of social group holding up such thoughts, to think structually and racially about the issue, with a priority for the collective over the individual.

That's because women "were made" for "in-group considerations", for caring for the wounded, sick, young and old rather than organising and leading the group in others matters, defending it and planning beyond more personal considerations.

They are also more adaptable and tend to prefer "the mainstream" for acceptance, which was crucial for their survival in the group, while the males can be more risk taking and creative in comparison.

So whether males vs. females becomes a question of conservative vs. ? depends on the question for what the respective political groups are really standing for in detail, how society as a whole being structured, what is the socially better accepted opinion in the direct social environment of the women etc.

In the USA, where people being often raised rather with a Libertarian and asocial political belief-system, the males tend to be even less caring for other individuals, than the females - they prefer more hard measures than the females. And the females try to avoid conflict more often and care for "the weak" too.

In a different social environment, the opposite could happen, if the males see there interests better defended in a socially revolutionary movement for example.

Essentially it is always about the avoidance of conflicts and the acceptance by the mainstream - for the majority of females in politics.

Crucial is for females, that the direct social environment (family, neighbourhood, colleagues, peer group, school, etc.) is more important than the societal tendencies or higher structures, also more important than personal experiences and logic than to males. Males on the other hand are harder to "convert", if having come to a conclusion, no matter how stupid it might be. And they might also be more egoistic and less compassionate, even to a very brutal degree, if that's the tendency being fostered. Females can become like that as well, but are somewhat less likely to, unless their "conservative values" being questioned and their personal worldview under hard attacks - like f.e. in the Muslim world these days among strong believers and radicals.

The mass media are crucial in this respect, as they might be far away, but still give us the impression of being very close. So if the TV told ya somethin', you must consider it...

So females are in any case MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN MALES, in the sense of sticking to established rules and behaviour.

They are less conservative if it is about STANDING GROUND for their interests or conservative values, if they being questioned in society as a whole, as they tend to adaptation.

Females will be, therefore, always be more likely and closer to what the current society as a whole is tending towards, males might be more backward, more individualistic to egoistic, or the new avantgarde. So in any case, more likely to be in some respects MORE EXTREME and more DEVIATING from the mean of the society - in all directions.

[Bloodeagle]

Yes, I believe men are more conservative by nature. Since most men practice logic and most women rely on intuition, the men will tend to stick with the (tried and true), whereas women are more likely to let emotion dictate their decision making.

[Agrippa]

Yes, I believe men are more conservative by nature. Since most men practice logic and most women rely on intuition, the men will tend to stick with the (tried and true), whereas women are more likely to let emotion dictate their decision making.

Their emotions tell them to adapt socially and avoid risks though.

As you can see in almost all more radical and revolutionary movements, men made the start primarily and female just added to it, when being in close social contact with such an environment or the success became more sensible.

Also males are not all that logical, neither if being conservative, nor if being radical, point is just, they are more direct, risk-taking and "object-oriented" politically, females more indirect, risk-avoiding and "subject-oriented".

So the political outcome will be, in a male vs. female comparison, always depend, like explained above, on the exact political circumstances.

As long as Socialism was more radical, males dominated it, when it became more dominant in certain social environments, females joined in. When Socialism was established, females tended to stick to it, since it became the mainstream - so they CONSERVED the established order.

AND THAT's what females do, while males only do so if truly believing in it or having a direct benefit from it, females conserve because they try to avoid the risk of change politically...

Funnily, in personal matters and in LATER AGE things can turn around, but that's another story, since women are more adaptable and stay that way there whole life, while men are more "fixed", and become even more so - personally, in later age.

Revolutionary attempts are largely the efforts of young males - if you have a lack of young males, you will have a rather unflexible and weak society, with less of an revolutionary tendency. If you have too much young males, the revolutionary tendencies might be a constant issue...

[antonio]

Women tend towards being more agreeable, try to avoid conflicts, radicalism, violence and war, hard measures and try to focus on the individuals, rather than structural considerations.

Women are not much agreeable on facing a suposedly low intensity conflict. There's also worth of mention their behaviour (of part of them) at driving: they're afraid just on feeling endangered themselves, but they're not specially prudent at situations (walking passes) were there others what are endangered: I always walk into my job and that's an unbiased evidence, I guess.

Somewhat it's a nice feature on many Leftist women: that they spread their good feelings to all the world and not only to their relatives (which it could be considered as egoistic as men self-centered actitude), even if that unrealistic or plain wrong ideological consecuences. In fact, at Spain, I can stand many of Right-wingers female comentators: it's somewhat sick and unnatural watching a woman express thougher stands than even yourself.

[Agrippa]

Women are not much agreeable on facing a suposedly low intensity conflict. There's also worth of mention their behaviour (of part of them) at driving: they're afraid just on feeling endangered themselves, but they're not specially prudent at situations (walking passes) were there others what are endangered: I always walk into my job and that's an unbiased evidence, I guess.

Indeed, it is about risk avoidance - for themselves and their family, primarily. Females are also more likely to tell their man, if it is about something which might not be rewarded by society, "why do you care, it is not our business..."

That is part of this "internal orientation" and also a reason for the ridiculous and hypocritical pseudo-individualistic concepts and new "career oriented life plans" - with little in return, being so successful among women in particular.

They can be approached easily, if you are in charge, but they are not as easy to turn, if you are at the fringes - because logical arguments and moral appeals which they don't find in their social environment and might consider "dangerous" and "risky" of some sort are harder to get through on the AVERAGE women, than the AVERAGE men.

Obviously, I'm always talking about tendencies here and I know very well, that some males function exactly like the female versions I described and vice versa. But looking at the generalised tendencies in the sexes, things are quite clear...

[Stars Down To Earth]

Women are more conservative than men in general (fuck, I have to generalize here!). Just like you said Agrippa, they tend to conserve the dominant order, after it's been established. Girls are much more likely to "go with the flow" - it doesn't really matter if "the flow" is conservative or liberal. In Europe and the US, the mainstream tends towards liberal. And I'm not slagging off ladies, since the majority of men (especially older men) are mainstream followers as well. The radical changes in human society are caused by young men - both the good and bad changes.

Male and female IQ is also related to this. If you make a survey, you'll see most women have an average-to-high IQ, while men tend towards extremes. We have more male super-geniuses, and more male fuckwits.

And this is not just seen in politics or IQ, but in everyday life too. A social group usually looks like this:

1. Alpha male (the leader)
2. Alpha female (the leader's partner)
3. Beta males and Beta females (the average members)
4. Gamma males (the lowest are usually male)