Data Is Beautiful

I really don't like that the graphs aren't across the same period of time.

Oh boy liberal vs conservative, what a wide variety of political opinion allowed for by the "financial times"

I don't know about beautiful data. That's scary data :/

Is this American liberal or real liberal?

not surprising. the american right is specifically catered to address male grievances.

Here in South Korea - Both the liberal and conservative party are very conservative. It wasn't until 10-15 years ago that women could even be the "leader" of the house. So the delta in conservative/liberal is more likely to do with economic/war policies with the North than much else (since men get conscripted, and North policies is one of the key differentiators between the 2 parties)

shcoking, women arent a fan en masse of being 'tradwifes' to tate blowhards

This data is poorly presented and unclear. It may well have some really useful insights, but it's definitely not beautiful.

This data is anything but beautiful. Its horrendously laid out. Not intuitive in the slightest.

Oh good, I'm better than the average man in something.

This is an opinion piece they are really really reaching with.

Conservatives have been running this for a few days now but it just doesn't add up. At least for the US it flies in the face of all published polling, including what they claim as sources. Unless you look at Gen Z men skewing independent and take that as them becoming more conservative because you only see the political spectrum as D/I/M.

But that's not what being an independent means. It isn't a party. It's literally not having a party.

I forgot to add, there's also the Roe effect. The overturning of Roe has pushed women left in the US.

Until there's a liberal space for men, it's going to cause them to flock to lying conservatives. There, they will be indoctrinated by weird, stupid conservative bullshit that has nothing to do with any of this.

And I don't like how sparse the data points are but they went with a wobbly interpolated curve anyway.

I personally don't like how the top left one starts at 2005, unlike every other graph, but they all have the same x scale. (I nitpick things sometimes)

They missed the chance to rotate these graphs vertically..

Is it just me or are those the typical US-centric terms! If so, I'd trust those numbers even less than I already do because they moved the timespans between the graphs.

Looks like the constant insidious propaganda is working as expected.