Precisely, and this goes back to ye olden paleolithic times when strong men were only able to get that buff because they had their shit together, and were the only ones who could reliably put food on the table/ward off predators.
This is the basis of my personal schizotheory of why women generally vote more "leftist" compared to men.
The purpose of life of every living being is reproduction--humans included--and to reproduce in a way that maximizes the survival and reproductive chances of our progeny is thus the strongest instinct we have. The fitness of our progeny has two aspects: the material one (resources needed for survival and future reproduction) and the heritable one (genetic code and its regulation.) Obviously, the ability to gather resources and compete with other males for reproductive rights determines what trait are desirable. For the vast majority of human history, we were hunter-gatherers and thus it was physical strength that determined success in both resource gathering and inter-male competition. This explains the previously posted extremely strong correlation between (appearance of) physical strength and mating and reproductive success that persists to this day. Even after moving away from hunting-gathering to agriculture, physical prowess remained of critical importance and it is only in the 20th century and especially in the last couple decades that being in good physical shape is no longer beneficial to resource gathering. In fact, one could argue that the relationship between strength and resources is
inverse now; physically demanding jobs generally pay significantly less than mentally tasking ones.
Women are therefore faced with a dilemma; on the one hand, they instinctively want a man who exhibits traits of being physically strong because they perceive him as being of high genetic quality while on the other hand, they need to ensure their mate will be able to provide for their children materially, which in the 21st century requires a rather different set of traits, few of which are generally perceived as desirable, and more importantly, which are not often found in physically strong men. This problem of seemingly needing two different men to maximize reproductive success can be resolved by having the state assume the role of the provider, which is generally something that all "leftist" policies boil down to. It is thus not unreasonable to assume that the primary motivation for women being more drawn to "leftist" and socialist policies is not a greater degree of inherent altruism and compassion, but rather a simple selfish (but reasonable) desire to be able to select partners based purely on desirable genetic traits by having the state take care of providing resources for their progeny.
tl;dr: Women vote for leftist policies to prevent inferior males like Null from reproducing. Dare I say... Based & redpilled?
I had no idea paypigs get their own forum.
