Dr. Martin Hash Podcast

If women had been fully integrated into government, and enfranchised at the time, The Constitution probably wouldn't be liberty-based: no making decisions for yourself, and reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences of your actions. Instead it would have been more egalitarian: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. The competing ideologies makes a big difference in society because egalitarianism tries to make people equal, while liberty tends to make them unequal.

Not only does liberty benefit men due to the fact that both ambition & competitiveness are boosted by testosterone, but woman also shoulder the bulk of the responsibility in childbearing & rearing, which affects their priorities such that, given the same opportunities, on average, men will excel over them. This has nothing to do with capability or work ethic; it's simply different situations. The result is that, in the aggregate, women would benefit in a sharing society, specifically an egalitarian society where the motivational and situational advantages of men are muted. Combine that with the current aggrandizement of past grievances, and it's easy to understand why women congregate on one political team, and men on the other.