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