That "Women's Vote" Thing? Not Good

 Much has been made about the 'suburban women's vote' by the usual pundits; in general terms, those pundits declare that a conservative (or mean-tweets) candidate cannot win because 'suburban women.'

It's worse than you think.

...There is a simple and oft-invoked reason for women to align with the political left: Women are empathetic. They are compassionate. And as such, they are often more attuned to the plight of those in the lowest classes of society. Women are also, generally, the more cautious of the two sexes, and the more delicate. That in politics they would prefer the arrangement which affords citizens less choice but more security is therefore unsurprising. ...

Yah.  Not hard to believe that, but what follows..........

...As the university has gone female, it has also gone left. This was the conclusion of a study by Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, a woman with a Ph.D. in social psychology, in their analysis of the changing sex composition of higher education, published in Quillette magazine last year. As broader phenomena, wokeness, "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," and ever-narrowing boundaries around acceptable speech have traced the same trajectory as the feminizing of higher education. Women themselves express placing higher value on inclusion than objective truth (males express exactly the opposite), which is why Winegard and Clark called recent trends in higher education “precisely what one would expect as women’s representation in academia grows.” If the future is female, the future is also both left-wing and, adding Stone and Wilcox’s data into the mix, post-familial. ...

That 'post-familial' thing was precisely the point of Obama's "Life of Julia" campaign.  Julia doesn't need a man, and really doesn't need children, either.  But if she DOES have children, Gummint is here to take care of her--and them.

The logic is compelling, if you buy the premise.  And since women are no longer concerned with What Is, that premise sells.