Who Would Have Believed The Singularity Would Be So Stupid?

Political scientists & data quants have been telling us this for half a decade.

Women have moved *radically* leftward, at a scale & speed with no modern precedent, while men have, on the whole, remained largely steady & unchanged.

And you can see it across the data: https://t.co/3uvlTDRwMg pic.twitter.com/Vh6zwPkKUI

— Zarathustra (@zarathustra5150) January 15, 2026

Why?

Bill Ackman quote tweeted a graph showing the partisan gap between young men and women almost doubled in 25 years.

Women moved radically left. Men stayed roughly where they were.

Good question. Most answers I've seen are either tribal ("women are emotional") or surface-level ("social media bad"). Neither traces the actual mechanism.

Let me try.

First, notice what Wanye pointed out:

We've been told for a decade that men are "radicalizing to the right" and that this is dangerous. The actual data shows the opposite. Men barely moved. Women moved 20+ points leftward.

The story we are told is exactly inverted from reality. And when female leftward movement does get discussed, it's framed as progress: "women becoming more educated, more independent, more enlightened"

They'll tell you the graph shows enlightenment and progress. Wrong.

The graph shows is capture.

This Isn't Just America

Before getting into mechanism, something important: this pattern isn't only American. It's global.

The Financial Times documented it last year The gender ideology gap is widening across dozens of countries simultaneously. UK, Germany, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Poland, Brazil, Tunisia. Young women moving left on social issues, young men either stable or drifting right.

Source:

https://www.ft.com/content/29fd9b5c-2f35-41bf-9d4c-994db4e12998

This matters because it rules out explanations specific to American politics. It's not Title IX policy. It's not

#MeToo

. It's not the specific culture war of US campuses. Something bigger is happening, something that rolled out globally at roughly the same time.

South Korea is the extreme case. Young Korean men are now overwhelmingly conservative. Young Korean women are overwhelmingly progressive. The gap there is even wider than the US. Contributing factors include mandatory military service for men (18 months of your life the state takes, while women are exempt) and brutal economic competition. But the timing of divergence still tracks with smartphone adoption.

Whatever is causing this, it's not American. The machine is global.

The Substrate

Start with the biological hardware.

Women evolved in environments where social exclusion carried enormous survival costs. You can't hunt pregnant. You can't fight nursing. Survival required the tribe's acceptance: their protection, their food sharing, their tolerance of your temporary vulnerability. Millions of years of this and you get hardware that treats social rejection as serious threat.

Men faced different pressures. Hunting parties gone for days. Exploration. Combat. You had to tolerate being alone, disliked, outside the group for extended periods. Men who could handle temporary exclusion without falling apart had more options. More risk-taking, more independence, more ability to leave bad situations.

(Male status still mattered enormously for reproduction, low-status men had it rough. But men could recover from temporary exclusion in ways that were harder for pregnant or nursing women.)

This shows up in personality research. David Schmitt's work across 55 cultures found the same pattern everywhere: women average higher agreeableness, higher neuroticism (sensitivity to negative stimuli, including social rejection cues). Men average higher tolerance for disagreement and social conflict. The differences aren't huge but they're consistent across every culture studied.  

Whatever is causing this, it's not American.  

The machine is global.