I'm pretty sure women don't want to date people who have any sort of disposition that leans towards hating them or believing that women are lesser than men.
Unfortunately, a lot of men learned that way of thinking early in life(from family and/or media) and it ruins any attempt at a relationship, then they blame women and run to the very people who set them up to fail for validation, or find new ones like that sex trafficker with the pizza boxes, or that canadian psychologist who sugar coats sexism online. Repeat ad nauseum.
I have an old high school friend who is very much into the whole Andrew Tate thing. His parents were separated, I don't know the details as to why, but I do know that his father was a lot more stable than his mother, and I do sometimes wonder if he had lived with his father, if he would have turned out better.
He also thinks the earth is flat because... otherwise a ball would roll off a table. QED.
So not exactly firing an all cylinders to begin with.
“Divorced dad energy” is one of those meme things that everyone likes to make fun of when a dude does anything, but no one likes to address that same poison when divorced moms act like fools.
My mother would drag me to various groups that would absolutely shit on “men” constantly, and I got to hear that constantly. It was weird growing up in that environment, but luckily for me it was before the redpill trash all over the internet. Managed to find some good friends in high school
Online is heavily skewed in women's favor unfortunately. I had a female coworker that had 100+ matches on bumble and kept complaining how hard it was too keep track of. She wasn't even very pretty and she had an empty pot for head. Meanwhile male coworkers really struggle. No surprise This will make some males bitter and lash out.
Even if they do find a partner Worst part is if the social skills are bad it is a bad relationship. I hope we are not seeing a universe 25 style collapse.
Yeah I agree. Wanting to Go back the good old days is what is causing this trend. Though Realistically all the social skills in the world won't bag you the girl if you are average right now. I knew a few coworkers that wouldn't even talk to a guy unless he was a 666 man. 6 figures, 6 feet, 6 pack. No surprise they are single. I wonder if their POV changed overtime, they were in early 20s at the time. I know my old roommate lowered her standards super hard over 30 to bag a husband.
That's very true and likely why she felt so overwhelmed. No one is really winning. She would have had a really good match in there but drowned in a sea of options.
conflate liberal/conservative with the dominant left/right parties in these nations
does not include people who do not identify with one of those dominant parties
have some somewhat unreliable stats magic behind them
A lot of young men in the US are reporting themselves as "not a Democrat or Republican", and that's causing a lot of this proportional shift. I would bet that characterizes a lot of folks on this site who are not conservative.
At the same time I know many people (my brother included) that claim to be "independent" because they think that the trump camp is somehow outside the conservative camp, and therefore respond "independent" on polls. Because they think "I'm not democrat or conservative, I just want to drain the swamp" and then support trump, who is literally a swamp.
That's because when talking to tribalist types, you're seen as either with them or against them and in a system with 2 political parties "against them" means "supporting the other guys".
There is no independent thinking amongst the "party supporter" masses, only following and parroting of the party messages, so the idea of somebody being a genuinely independent thinker guided by personal principles rather than following some tribe or other is anathema to them.
On the flip side, in Europe extreme right parties are mostly being propped up by young men, while in other age groups men and women vote relatively similarly, which supports this finding.
conflate liberal/conservative with the dominant left/right parties in these nations
Why do so many people on Lemmy insist on pretending that liberal/conservative aren't relative terms?
Every single time those words get used with their little l/c to mean "relatively liberal/conservative) I see multiple people go "well ackshully a Liberal is a right wing ideology!"
The actual opposite of conservative in this case would be progressive. Liberal isn't a relative term, progressive is. It's easy enough to tell from context but when there's already no info on how these graphs came to be it just adds to them being questionable.
In the UK, where there actually is a centralist party, most of the "centralists" don't actually vote for them. Which really tells you everything you need to know about centralism. It's not a political ideology, it's just a refusal to engage.
Thanks for explaining. I did a bad job explaining it, but I'm only taking a short break irl and am just jumping into this conversation. I've removed that section of my comment.
The book explains this in more detail and I recommend it. We don't get much deep discussion into what it means to be conservative/liberal and the purpose of the book isn't to go into that but it does provide a framework. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs
But now your comment is just "here's 10 hour read that explains everything, I will not elaborate" like in this post: https://sh.itjust.works/post/26206134
You can at least leave info about what it should explain, at best you can summarise, but it is possible that you will not persuade people to read that.
From the wiki page, it looks like the idea behind the book is viable, but nothing is scientific about it, no research, no further developments, it's just how the author sees the system work. This may be insightful but should be taken with a large grain of salt
Yes. Liberal is the opposite of "moralist" and sometimes "oppressive".
The US use of the word "liberal" is a bit shifted in the direction of "libertine" (same as libertarian, but strongly focused on personal freedoms of substance abuse and sexual promiscuity at the expense of economical\political freedoms to own catgirl slaves and shoot up crowds).
In what way? Conservativism is a branch of Liberalism, just like Progressivism. They are all under the Capitalist umbrella of Liberalism. The opposite, therefore, is Socialism.
Congratulations, you have successfully redefined imprtant words in a way that makes your understanding of them fundamentally incomoatible with other people's, rendering clear communication impossible.
I don't know why this was your goal, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was intentional, because the only alternative is that you are less intelligent than a particularly dense house plant.
Never redefined any of it. Liberalism is the ideology supporting Capitalism, Progressivism is the left side of liberalism and conservativism is the right side. Progressives still support Capitalism, same with conservatives.
I mean it isn't. Progressivism only seems to exist as a word in America, because the USA has the red scares, and conflates communism and socialism, and so are scared of the phrase and had to reinvent their own.
In Europe, you have Conservatives (right wing market, socially conservative), Liberals (free market, but with positivity towards social reforms). Socialism or Democratic Socialism (positive social reforms, state involvement, but with democracy). Communism (economic distribution but more autocratic), and Social Democratic (somewhere between Liberal and Democratic Socialist). Socialism is where you're willing to consider the state getting involved in wealth redistribution.
It's better you understand political philosophy and how it is used and applies around the world to truly understand it. You cannot understand the spectrum, if you cannot zoom out from the Overton window.
Listen, I too can write several paragraphs painting the consequences of redefining the relevant key words in hand. I will be careful to avoid providing substance of the topic in hand while attempting to make you feel guilty and of poor character.
Do not misunderstand anything I say because I will try to make sure you think that your work actually harms people because your education and intelligence are insufficient and even subversive. If you do not, you will see that everyone else will be buying a nice lollipop for the event and add to the consequential sugar.
This explains why they are fat and sitting at a computer in their parent's basement. You won't be able stop it because no matter what you do, there are so many that the truth is inevitable for everyone involved; whether they bother to acknowledge such or not.
People like you are why we cannot discuss political ideas without being put into a bucket and given some horrific label. Being conservative doesnt make u sexist some conservative views are sexist same as some progressive view are sexist. Stop spouting hate like politics is a football team and practice critical thinking where you can take ideas from all perspectives.
People are losing faith rapidly in the left because they don't seem to be for the everyday working class Briton like they used to be.
There is a big shift going to Reform now largely because they want to reduce immigration. The left deny the situation and the right have claimed they will reduce it every year then increase.
People are flooding to the "far right"* because they don't seen the main parties address the main issue they want addressing and have been talking about for decades at this point, generations even.
_* not actually far right. But the left love throwing that term around to anyone that has a different opinion to them. They just want lower immigration, which historically has been a left leaning ideology
Look I don't know how to tell you this but just because you live in a bubble doesn't mean everybody else does.
That is not "a big shift in the UK towards reform", don't be daft. They only have 4 MPs only two of which ever bothered turning up, they are about as politically relevant as my underwear.
Also Reform absolutely are far right they are basically Nazis, albeit brainless lazy incompetent ones. You need to go outside and interact with normal members of the human race rather than whoever it is you're talking to on the "I'm not racist but..." Facebook group
You're taking data out of context. You can make it say anything when you do that.
Labour won with fewer votes than they got in the last election which they lost. That tells me that this was mostly a protest vote people weren't voting for any particular party that were voting for not to the conservatives.
But in the 2025 election the conservatives won't be in power and so there won't be a protest vote against them. If reform do well in those elections that would be evidence of a shift until then the balance of probability is simply that they were the obvious processed vote for the right-wing inclined that did not want to vote for the conservatives.
You cannot draw any conclusions from the results of such a politically unstable period.
Additionally I'm not letting you off the hook for in any way trying to suggest that the reform party are in any way shape or form anything but a bunch of bigoted misogynists. How dare you suggest that they are simply a right-wing political party that the other parties are trying to lambast in an attempt to discredit them. They are far right extremists, stop trying to defend them.
Nigel farage literally (as in he actually did this) posed in front of a poster that was styled on Nazi propaganda. The only people making them out to be Nazis are themselves, they are being Nazis and people are pointing it out, that's not people defaming them, that's people pointing out that they are being Nazis. People like you are allow the hard right thrive, the bigots and racists are allowed to exist because apologists like you make excuses for them.
Please be better. Or if you can't be better at least stop spreading your uninformed opinions on the internet, no one needs to hear the opinions of a Nazi apologist.
Wow being against uncontrolled immigration is so Nazi.
Literally no other person could think immigration should go down for any reason or any amount without being a Nazi.
I'm really glad you showed me a photo of someone concerned with immigration when it's the number one issue in the country. Really proved that, that guy is a Nazi.
I do think he's a dickhead. But Nazis and reform are different.
The graph appears to show that from approximately 2010 (Libdem & Tory coalition) onwards for women, and a few years later (when we somehow got a full Tory government) for men, the younger people shown on the graph, said or thought something along the lines of "this Tory government is awful and we need to move in the opposite direction".
I agree that "not voting for the Tories" was pretty much the main driver, but these are not "new options".
The Brexit Party's "surprise" increase this year, was in many ways just returning to the 10-15% that they received as UKIP in 2015.
In the two elections in between, they agreed to not contest many of the Tory seats, to not risk "splitting the vote" to help keep "evil Jeremy" out of power.
The Tory vote + Brexit Party vote, added together, is lower than the number who voted for either Boris Johnson, Theresa May or 2017 Jeremy Corbyn. Fewer people voted for Keir Starmer than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 or 2019 - so technically the biggest change in vote is probably "did not/unable to vote this year", with an increase of 3 million.
As ever, "didn't/unable to vote this year" won yet another successive landslide victory of about 20 million, or about the same as the top three parties added together.
Anyway, apologies for the tangent. The graph is particularly looking at younger people, who are on average more left leaning, and have become more so in the last 40 years. Though the recent mainstream politics/media shift towards the far right is absolutely terrifying, I don't think it's reflected in the young people shown in this graph.
As women gain independence, frightened men turn to patriarchal solutions. Hence a turd like JD Vance spouting hateful and controlling rhetoric on podcasts and Ahole Tate brainwashing adolescent boys. Fuck these people.
SK is wild right now. Women are taking part in the 4B movement (no dating, sex, childbirth, or marriage. The Korean words start with "B"). There was a online feminist group that got people so heated they thought they were sneaking hand signals into "male" media and they were getting people fired. If certain characters didn't come out with risqué enough clothing, male netizens would blame some secret feminist in the company. Women are assaulted if they're confused for a feminist due to just their hairstyle. A book ("Kim Jiyoung 1989" I think) that is, like, baby's first feminist literature, can have your spouse leave you. Men say you can't date a woman whose read it. All the book is about is the subtle sexism women face. They have an epidemic of "molka," which are secret cameras in women's bathrooms among other places. Women tell each other to bring nail polish to paint over the screws to protect themselves. Their new president is looking to abolish the gender equality ministry and blames feminism for the low birth rate.
TL;DR: Yeah, it's pretty bad over there right now.
Edit: Here's a two part video that goes over this surprisingly well for being about gacha games. Part 1 and Part 2.
Can confirm, it's comparatively (sometimes even without comparing) a shithole in every other way out here, but it's not NEARLY as bad for gender equality. Still pretty bad don't get me wrong, but at least the government isn't actively trying to dismantle institutions formed to combat gender inequality 🤷♂️
oh yeah, South Korea has gone off the rails recently. lots of news stories about men assaulting women for the assumption that they're feminists, anti-woman politicians being elected, women losing their jobs for being (or assumed to be) feminists, it's all Very Not Good.
It's very easy because the Tories have recently decided that the reason people don't like them is because they're not fascist enough, so they've doubled down and decided to be more fascist. At least trying to be, but it's difficult to be fascist when you lost power due to being awful fascists.
Weirdly people didn't want that, and so now they're even less popular.
People have always hated the Tories, however I think the recent hate can go back to a particular prime minister whose grave is now a gender neutral bathroom.
In the north of England certainly. Not sure how much people in London care about Thatcher.
I was thinking more recently about Boris and his various illegal activities. Oh and the crashing of the economy by the disability hire. Or the fact that our most recent excuse for a Tory prime minister basically allowed the Extreme right-wing free reign because he was incapable of standing up to them.
Anti-feminism has taken a huge hold in SK. it's partially related to the draft, but that's nothing new. women have been getting increased respect over the past decades, esp in sharp contrast to the pre-war era when women didnt even deserve names beyond "X's mom"
Also hard to believe the American average is +20 leaning lib. The country is represented by a fascist party and a centrist party, and anything more left than the centrist party is considered "far left".
The graph is about young people, not the entire population. Young people in America are historically more progressive than older people.
Also why does liberal and conservative have to be on an absolute scale? The words liberal and conservative seem to me at least be about pushing politics in one direction or another. Because policy is always subject to change, shouldn't the words liberal and conservative be relative to the political system they exist within?
Yes, "liberal" and "conservative" are relative, not absolute terms. There's a concept known as the Overton Window which describes exactly this shift of what is considered the "center" and what is considered a radical left/right position in any given society at any given time.
The idea that people should vote for their representatives, for example, was once considered an extremist take that could ruin civilization itself if implemented. The Overton Window shifted and nowadays even most Fascists will at least pretend in public to agree with it.
It doesn't have to be an absolute scale of course, but then why show 4 countries where all seem to deviate from the center? Are these country graphs even comparable?
Yeah I agree, it's not a very good graph. I just get frustrated when people ridicule the US political system for everything. We have a lot to fix (like what's causing women to become more liberal), but I think we need to focus on what's actionable and reasonable to fix. We can't become +20 more liberal overnight.
The Y axis here is not an absolute international political compass. It measures which political party each person favors, and judging by that country's local standards categorizes that party as either left or right.
A rising number in the US chart means a larger number of people prefer democrats over republicans. It doesn't mean that people's stances are necessarily moving further left. Similarly, it's no coincidence that the inflection point where UK numbers rise by a lot correspond to Brexit: the party seen as responsible for the unpopular change lost a lot of support, but that doesn't mean the population has so sharply moved drastically more progressive in such a short time.
The US population is largely some variety of “liberal” meaning vaguely left. The problem is the structure of our government favors land, not population.
From a personal point of view, I agree, but playing devil's advocate, really the chart should be flipped so that the left/rightness is shown that way and the dates are on the vertical axis.
It'd also be good if the time periods matched, and if there was a source for the data.
Probably as an over reaction to lost wages and the feeling of being completely unable to secure financial freedom for their family if they even had one which likely makes them feel like failures thus the hard pivot back to forceful ideology.
I mean unfortunately expectations of what a "man is" hasn't changed much since pre world wars with added consumerism since.
So it's equality where the equality is worse for everyone and social stigmas still are abound. It's a powder keg.
It's weird that the axes of where "centre" is remain stable over time. Can you imagine comparing "left vs right" between the 1890s and the 1920s? Like a bunch of stuff happened in between, history happened, and that tends to redefine left, right and centre.
The important thing here is to know how did they measure young people's political ideologies. I wouldn't expect it was self-perceived as currently, people have a hard time admitting they are conservative compared to admitting they sympathize with a conservative party.
If it was determined by a questionnaire, it would be interesting to see what questions were included. Maybe the questions weren't well planned and that's it. Maybe they equalled feminist takes to progressive liberal ones, which is something that can be discussed. In this case, I would be picky about the origin of the graphics.
If the importance of women's issues like reproductive freedom were overrepresented relative to other issues, this would definitely account for at least part of this difference. But "importance" itself is already a very subjective concept. It's hard to put numbers on these things and create a scoring system that's actually useful.
The gap sounds plausible, but I highly doubt the overall positions relative to 0.
E.g., the Federal Republic of Germany has had conservative chancellors for 51 years out of the 75 since it was founded. We did not have a constant left majority (I assume that is what they mean by liberal, since the actual sense of the term doesn't make sense as an opposite to "conservative").
Edit: I fucked up, this is only about people below 30.
This is only a relative argument if you can prove the government accurately and granularly represents the population. That would be nice if it were true but speaking as an American, I find it hard to believe.
Keep in mind that our voting system is actually built so the parliament represents the popular vote as closely as possible. It's not just an assembly of winners of individual "winner takes all" decisions. The average being above 0 in the graph should indeed mean left parties would be in the majority more often than not.
Edit: Another comment reminded me that the graphs only show 18-29 year olds. That explains it somewhat.
That's a different argument - yes, things were worse in the past than they are now. That doesn't mean that things won't get worse than they are now in the future.
Looks at past. Looks at future, well shit climate change is going to savage human life on earth. Checks notes woman are human. Shit bros your right I fear for womans futures too!
For anyone else also interested, I went and had a look at the links Dessalines kindly provided.
The source on the graphs says "Sources: Daniel Cox, Survey Center on American Life; Gallup Poll Social Series; FT analysis of General Social Surveys of Korea, Germany & US and the British Election Study. US data is respondent’s stated ideology. Other countries show support for liberal and conservative parties All figures are adjusted for time trend in the overall population." Where FT is financial times.
It's not clear how the words "liberal" and "conservative" were chosen, whether they're intended to mean "socially progressive" and "socially traditional" or have other connotations bound with the political parties too, and whether the original data chose those descriptions or if they're FT's inference as being "close enough" for an American audience.
Unfortunately the FT data site is refusing to let me look at them without "legitimate interest" advertising cookies so I can't tell you much more or if there's any detail on methodology.
In my city, there's a Korean community and from my friend who is a teacher, those girls who left Korea hate Korean dudes and want to hook up with Americans.
I don't understand anything about Korean culture or k-pop.
But after reading about 4B, this is starting to make sense.
Liberalism isn't the same as Left. It's not even in the same political axis.
You can't really read "more liberal" as being the same as "more leftist".
Left would be something like: "I want the greatest good for the greatest number".
Liberalism would be something like: "I want people to have the most freedom to do whatever they want".
You might notice that these two things collide in things like the existence of the super-rich, were for a liberal that's a good thing (they have maximum freedom) whilst for a Leftie it's a bad thing (wealth concentration reduces the access to resources for the many hence it directly goes against the greatest good for the greatest number).
Similarly centralizing control of part or the whole of the Economy (which decreases trade freedom) to achieve greater equality is absolutelly valid within the Leftwing principles and entirely against Liberal principles.
it's only in places like the US, were the entirety of Leftwing is about 4 congressmen, that Liberalism gets confused with Leftwing.
In graphs like these it is very much all smushed together. Otherwise they'd need a 3d plot.
If you want to get really technical too, liberalism and socialism have giant grey overlap areas. Classical Liberalism wasn't just about personal freedom, but also government by the people, for the people. Which is a collective good and freedom.
It's not nearly so easy as labeling one person a leftist and another a liberal. So above I use leftist in it's colloquial meaning of getting less conservative, literally moving to the left.
Well, honestly what political positions women have means less in "interesting times" like ours.
They are not strongly pressured by conservative men of their family and surroundings (if they have such), because tribal parts of politics rely a lot on crowd instincts, and those of women don't work exactly the same. They do participate in politics, but with the different kind of emotion.
For men a woman holding different views is usually not an existential enemy. They might ridicule that or dislike, that may look disgusting, but it's a different kind of attitude. It's pretty normal for women from families from authoritarian elites to have publicly liberal views. The dictator daddy won't punish his daughter for reposting something virtue-signalling against what he's doing. He knows it's of no consequence.
At the same time women, of course, see the tendencies around us and their views change accordingly.
But again, in the "interesting times" what men do may matter just a bit more, because there are power dynamics involved where women are disadvantaged due to both different tribal instincts and to men being more represented among people with power. In some sense political views are a kind of compensation.
So it's both bigger incentives for such views (with actual incels loudly talking) and less pressure (that's spent on threatening violence against male opponents).
When pregnancy and child birth are such a monumental part of a persons life, and the ability to choose whether or not to go through that process is taken away, it makes a lot of sense why this is the 'sole reason' for some women. As someone who very recently gave birth, everything else in the world and other political topics are dwarfed by the absolute earth-shattering life event that is bringing a child into this world. I think it is something that people who haven't been through it themselves, or who are not empethetic can not wrap their heads around. But there is absolutely a reason why many women are voting liberal for abortion rights alone. That is the single freedom that contributes most directly to a womens adult life. While tax policies and national affairs have an impact on everyones day to day lives, reproductive rights have an acute impact on womens immediate futures.
Abortion is undoubtedly a big reason for shifting voting habits for a large number of women. However, it is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to the way conservatives, particularly conservative men, treat and talk about women.
I know women who describe themselves as pro-life and yet have moved away from the Republican party due to the way they have handled various GOP leaders sex scandals, rape accusations, and general attitude towards women. They don't want abortion rights restored and yet they are turning away from Republicans. That is why I say that viewing this shift in voting habits solely through the lens of reproductive rights is unnecessarily reductive. By doing so you are excluding women who are part of that shift from consideration both in this discussion and in the larger view of what women in America want their future to look like. Your experience, while not uncommon, is not universal and any discussion that frames a complex issue in such a way is missing part of the picture.
Oh there are absolutely women who have turned their backs on the conservative party for those reasons and remain pro life. Personally, I see the issues as interconnected. It feels like we see a headline at least once a month where a conservative politician had an extra marital affair and was perfectly fine insisting their girlfriend get an abortion so that they can maintain their squeaky clean image. Or if their daughter had premarital sex and her successful college career was in jeopardy they would see things differently. Rules for thee and not for me. The shift is obviously more nuanced than a single issue, but reproductive rights radiates through a lot of different issues because it has to do with specifically men and their belief that their opinion matters more than others.
Do those same women think other women should die for a miscarriage like has happened twice now because of its connection to abortion. Or how about the lady face a life sentence in prison for a miscarriage. I think you’re utterly discounting the seriousness of all of that.
I didn't say that at all and if that's what you thought I said then your reading comprehension skills could use some work. I said reproductive rights are a part of a larger culture shift in how women vote. If even one woman has started voting against Republicans for reasons other than abortion access then your dumb assertion that they don't care about anything else falls apart. So maybe you should stop trying to simplify complex issues into easy to digest soundbites in order to make yourself seem like the most intelligent person in the room.
If you read the comment that preceded my response and came away thinking that I'm the one who devolved the conversation to this point then I'm going to have to disagree with you. That guy was clearly trying to stroke his own ego by putting someone else down and vapid grade school bullying tactics are something of a pet peeve of mine. My original comment was perfectly civil.
I wasn't paying attention for like 2 seconds and it went from "Men also have rights" to "Andrew Tate is a role model", like WTF internet, stop ruining good things, fuck.
Unfortunately, "Men's Rights" was a bait and switch. The Alpha/Sigma ideology says there can only ever be a handful of "True Men" worthy of human rights. Everyone else has to either prove themselves through combat or submit to being less than human.
These “True Men” ass holes are simply swooping in to prey on the young men who’ve been left behind
They're driving the disparity. Artificially constricting the demand for labor in order to drive down wages. Privatizing public services to squeeze working people for their last dime. Bombarding audiences with FUD in order to get them to blame every conceivable external agent - illegal migrants, evil foreign governments, spies, terrorists, literal fucking space aliens - so that the public is in a constant state of anxiety and exhaustion. Busting unions. Busting street protests. Busting college campuses. Corrupting the foundations of the political system to shield themselves from accountability for their shady actions. Then dumping vast fortunes into policing and the military in order to unleash wave upon wave of violence on working class communities.
At the forefront of all of these moves are "Alpha" men. People who believe themselves entitled to enormous wealth and social privilege, extracting at the expense of the rest of us. Its only after we've been ravaged that we see the lackeys and sycophants of these self-entitled paymasters step back in to recruit for the next generation of gladiatorial fighters, street cops, and foreign mercenaries.
If the issues young men had wherent real he wouldnt have the followers. We do account for 75% of suicides so Tate's diagnosis is correct just his treatment is wrong.
Exactly. But i feel both sides simply see these young men as soldiers to be recruited to their army of ideology. Regardless their is definatly a crisis of purpose for all youths thats effecting men particularly badly.
This is such a wildly intelligent comment that I'm curious what the down voters think. Guessing either Tate fans or ignoramuses, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I downvoted because the fact that issues exists doesn't justify the proposed "solutions". It's like saying that bloodletting has a point because patients really were sick, those things are not causally related.
I think that even having no one talk about problems is better than having someone talk about problems to actively do harm and gain power. One part of my reasons is usually this is not the case, and some already talk about the same problems but are not heard. Another reason is that when a problem is widely spread and there is no one exploiting it or raising awareness, there exists a pressure to start doing just that. So even no one is better than Tate.
the fact that issues exists doesn't justify the proposed "solutions"
Ok but they never said it did. They just pointed out that saying "assholes like Andrew State are responsible" leaves out that there's a reason people go to him and thus is not the actual root problem
I think that even having no one talk about problems is better than having someone talk about problems to actively do harm and gain power
Reason people go to Tate is not because issues exist, there's reason to people going to any liar or scammer and it's never the issue at hand, it's the illusion of a simple answer.
Have been discussing it with them and they are simply unwilling to give him any credit even if said credit is for highly successfull marketing of a wildly dangerouse religion like ideology to vulnerable youths.
It’s “The Woke”. Women are more visible in society as they are treated more equally, so certain (yes not all men) men see that as men losing rights and want to go back to “the good old days”
If you created a similar graph mapping the ideology gap between races or straight and LGBTQIA+ they’d look very similar.
I agree. Any divide they can make they will make. Its also convenient as it means they can use their culture war propaganda for double action to distract the masses.
Rapid increases in the productive forces of South Korea has resulted in a progressive population of women and a hyper-reactionary population of men, the increase in productive forces was so rapid it caused a hyper-sharpening of contradictions with tradition.
Fascism is Capitalism in decline. Masculinity is a recognized part of fascism, but fascism is rooted in Capitalist decay, not in moral failures of men.
Not quite. Fascism occurs when disparity rises, the petite bourgeoisie are being proletarianized, and collaborates with the bourgeoisie against rising class awareness and leftism among the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat. It isn't a symptom of success, but a defense mechanism.
Yet what I find extremely intriguing is that the capitalist class profits immensely when capitalism decays and therefore actively contributes towards its downfall. Therefore in a sence fascism is when the capitalist class is too successful and when nobody pushes back against their decay and corruption.
Women live in the same declining capitalistic society as men, yet they are far more resistant to fascism. That's not to say there is something wrong with men or masculinity. Society puts different pressures on men and women so they react differently.
I mean, if history lessons in Italy taught me anything, the 'super uomo D'Annunziano', "D'annunzio" and the original italian 'fascism' are pretty much linked.
There is a ton of academic interest in the relationship between sexuality and fascism. It was first noted in "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich after WW2. My comment is, of course, a massive oversimplification of a complex social dynamic.
It's the same dynamic that made US racists paranoid that black men wanted to rape white women when, in fact, their deeper fear was that white women wanted to have sex with black men. Fascists are particularly sensitive to sexual relations between "their women" and whomever they have chosen to blame for all their misfortunes.
So facism is mens fault? I wonder how that effects a young man who isnt a facist while they are developing? Ur narrative is actively harming young men and driving them to be the very thing u swore to drstroy.
No, it's not "men's" fault, but the people who's fault it is are primarily men. That's not an opinion, that's just history, not to mention what's happening before our eyes. Even women who are fascist push patriarchy. There is no point in debating whether fascism is primarily a male driven phenomenon. The only legitimate question is why?
Yes. Men had all the political power in the countries that turned to fascism in the past. If you knew any history this would be obvious.
this is kind of meaningless to point out, since men also had the power in every country that turned towards socialism, gave or took away rights, started and ended wars, etc.
I knew it as soon as I read your ‘Tate is right’ bullshit.
So men have no issues and the only reason men are listening to tate is cos they are hatfull evil bastards?
Yes. Men had all the political power in the countries that turned to fascism in the past. If you knew any history this would be obvious.
Im so happy to learn that women didnt go along with fascism or support it in any way. If u knew anything about history u'd have heard of Magda Goebbels, Irma Grese, Eva Braun, Margaret Harker, Yukiko Sugishita etc.
The same way that one woman having an abortion harms another woman; not at all.
Abortions are about the liberty to do with onself as one wishes, what does this got to do with u blaming men for fascism? Having your gender (something where most people derive a majority of their identity) blamed for the entirety of facism and its hanouse actions isnt exactly fair or a good way to raise a child.
It’s room temperature IQ weakling reactionaries like you that are harming young men. Real men stand against fascists.
This is bad faith child-like insults not a civilised discussion of ideas undertaken by real adults. I stand against fascists and i will not let you paint me as one.
There are definitely issues affecting men, the only men listening to Tate are weaklings looking to a perceived 'tough guy' for answers.
Yes exactly, im simpky saying thwy wouldnt be listening if he hadnt resonated with their issues.
I would also know they didn't get voted into positions of power, give speeches, command invasions or otherwise directly wield any power. Because they were living in patriarchal societies. Please think before you comment.
If we go back to your original claim that facism is entirely mens fault and this claim that women had no power does this make these women innocent? Also by ur logic men did literally everything else including go to war to fight facsism. You implication here is that its not human history but mans history and if i where i women id find that pretty demeaning.
As much as calling out fascists has to do with impacting the political views of non-fascists. There's an Explain Like I'm Five sub somewhere you could post this question to.
If you don't want to be insulted you should avoid entering conversations by parroting the views of rapists.
Again attacking the person is not good faith discussion i refuse to engage in bad faith insults.
The only possible explanation for any of this is that men are bad and we should definitely not examine the underlying causes and material conditions at all.
Bullshit. Most men suffer under toxic patriarchy as well. I absolutely love that this shit is finally getting pulled into the spotlight. I have not suffered a single iota of harm from anything "woke" and I would argue that no honest man has either.
How do men suffer under patriarchy? Do u really want to be the one blaming 75% of suicides on men not being allowed to beat their wives? Sounds like ur calling all cis men evil bad people. I wonder what such a narrative would do to a young man trying to develop a sence of self, identity, and personal ideology?
Yep. Toxic masculinity wants us to work ourselves to death without complaining to anyone. So our mental health is in the fucking toilet. If you're not working enough, you're not providing and you're not a real man. If you do work enough but show any emotion that's not a "manly" emotion (anything involving tears outside of a funeral or during Old Yeller or anything that's too excited) then you're not a real man.
I could write a whole dissertation on how young men get sucked into that whole toxic ideology due to the promises of being able to have a family and a house. And it's all a fucking lie.
Male suicide is getting worse every year the patriarchy is getting destroyed more every year, im simply pointing out the correlation is backward sof what u claim.
Damn I wonder how someone could conclude that patriarchy hurts the majority of men.
The data correlates exactly the wrong way for this to be true.
Queer and gender nonconforming men get an immense amount of abuse due to patriarchy. Even gender conforming straight boys and men do if they show sensitivity in any real capacity. The abuse of boys and young men for the sake of making them “man up” is hardly an unusual in many areas.
Do u really want to be the one blaming 75% of suicides on men not being allowed to beat their wives?
What? This has nothing to do with the comment you replied to.
Sounds like ur calling all cis men evil bad people.
No, this is a ridiculous conclusion you drew from someone saying patriarchy hurts everyone.
In the US, Gallup data shows that after decades where the sexes were each spread roughly equally across liberal and conservative world views, women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than their male contemporaries. That gap took just six years to open up.
So it might be worth taking it with a pinch of salt because I'm betting it's using the very dumbed down "liberal vs conservative" 'murican political view. Maybe skew all results down 3-6 points.
I believe that a significant factor for this can be attributed to mental development and maturity of boys lagging behind that of girls of the same age, during formative years. And, please read on, if you assume my argument is "boys dumb, conservatives dumb. Q.E.D."
The second factor is an education system where this offset in mental development/maturity is further confounded. Boys don't typically do as well, because sitting idle and being a "good boy", is more challenging. This leads to a path for boys to start working earlier, while girls get higher degrees. (I assume the trends for higher education by gender, to be similar, if not, then that can falsify this hypothesis).
What a person then observes they get from society, vs what you pay in terms of taxes, is skewed between these two groups, and highly correlated with gender.
If this hypothesis has any validity to to it, then one could argue that a way to mitigate this is by correcting the negative causes. Where the fundamental root cause might be improved by revisiting how education is failing boys in particular.
The challenge with this is that if the conservative parties' policies are driven by what can make more people vote conservative, then this will be a negative feedback loop. The worse you make it for a certain group of people that vote for you, the more that group is willing to vote for you.
I think the issue is simpler, in that the traditionally dominant group statistically reacts negatively to the levelling of the field and their loss of control and power over the other group. This and the fact that it's statistically harder to see the oppression and feel for it when you are not affected by it(and this goes for every form of oppression).
Canada is so fucked. I understand the fatigue with Justin Trudeau and the Liberals but if PP wins it truly is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
We deserve whatever comes from the next election. A person is smart. People are dumb.
People are pissed off and struggling because of the decisions that their municipal or provincial government make, and then misattribute that pain to the federal government.
Yet, they'll vote conservative, not realizing this.
Housing affordability, healthcare, education, traffic congestion, crime, homelessness, childcare, or even snow removal ARE NOT the responsibility of the federal government.
Rather than buying "fuck Trudeau" stickers and flags to put on their oversized pickup trucks, maybe voters should learn how our government is structured.
I strongly disagree and anecdotally the sentiment plays out.
People are pissed off and struggling because of the decisions that their municipal or provincial government make, and then misattribute that pain to the federal government.
You're also ignoring the litany of bullshit the Liberals have fumbled during their time in office as well as the multiple very public scandals around what amounts to a very publicly perceived "not giving a shit about Canadians".
Housing affordability, healthcare, education, traffic congestion, crime, homelessness, childcare, or even snow removal ARE NOT the responsibility of the federal government.
They are everyone's responsibility don't try to pass the buck. The Fed's have an obligation just as much as provincial and municipal.
As someone who leans left and has voted Liberal on multiple occasions making it out like they're the victim is complete and utter bullshit.
Canadian politics: red, Liberal party (center); blue, Conservative party (right); orange, New Democrat party (left); green, Green party (was kinda conservative, then had a meltdown around identity politics); BQ are kind of French separatists.
The colors are also meaningless as well since there was no global definition of each color means respective to political leanings. So it's basically a meaningless picture. At least the OP graphic (while it has some pretty big problems) tells you which is left and which is right.
Yeah I got that from context but I wouldn't just dump a UK political chart on everyone and expect them to be able to understand it not least because the colors all opposite to what you would expect from a US centric point of view
Here you see the chinese meddling in other countries' politics. The canadians are so brainwashed by the chinese that in canadian elections they vote for the Communist Party of China!
So here's the question - is the scale consistent over time? That is, do we consider the same ideas left/right wing in 202x as we did in 199x?
Let's assume it is. We're seeing men lean towards the center/right, and a lot of people are asking why. The trouble is, the answer isn't one people like to hear - in our headlong pursuit of equity, we're introducing a lot of inequality. You lift the ladies up, while you let the men climb - all based on the assumption that the women had further to climb so what you're doing is levelling the field.
Countering this is a sympathetic voice, one offering to bring back equality or offer a different kind of equity. Casting gender equity as a zero sum game, and pushing for equality aimed at the ones not being lifted up.
I often hear the "uneducated men" argument, but that's just an ugly echo from the past serving those it once oppressed in a bitter irony. The reality is that even educated people can fall for propaganda. Especially when voting in what they see as their own self interest.
If the scale would not be consistent, the results is actual worse. The whole political spectrum is moving towards the right. Traditional left wing parties here in Germany doing right wing stuff is getting normal.
And I don't see any left party in the U.K. or U.S. parliaments.
Hopefully, in the distant future (as t -> inf), we will all become conservatives. Not out of resistance to change, but because we did so well: We have progressed to such an optimal point that any further step (progress) would lead to something worse. Maybe the trends reflect this?
Political education in the US and many of the countries that hold these polls is awful. I'd trust a middle-schooler from Cuba, Vietnam, or China more than an ivy-league-educated polysci graduate when it comes to political awareness.
It sounds like you're thinking of Libertarianism which is a subset of liberalism, but they are distinct.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Liberalism supports capitalism and private property, thats not left wing. Leftism isnt "when government does stuff", its worker owned economies and true progress (no unions dont count as a worker owned economy). There are centrist ideologies which aren't strictly speaking left or right like Social Democracy and Georgism but Liberalism isn't in that category.
Hey look if you start taking away white male privilege they freak out when they find out people of other races, genders and creeds are better than them, who knew?
Older men are generally already in a position of benefit, locked in a system where they cannot be taken down from their position of power. Reforms are coming at the beginning of the chain (entrance to university, internships and early job opportunities). Young men in families where their father/grandfather were in systems that benefited them - and also nepotism - have the understanding they will need to do very little to succeed. They have not put the effort in because they were told they would not have to compete.
Have a look at old laws for where you live in the world. Find out whether your mother or grandmother actually had the opportunity for higher education, or even whether she could get/keep a job after she had children and then form your own conclusions from there.
South Korea has one of the worst reproduction rates of the world, caused by women deciding to not choose a man to spend their life with but to live their own life. Which apparently causes men to freak out and go conservative
Nono you see only with a strong man a woman is free to be a real woman! Free to look pretty, get pregnant, make the house tidy and cook delicious food. The things women enjoy!
/s Just in case I wasn't being over the top enough to make this obvious sarcasm a
I recall someone saying in India gay men are more acceptable because it removes a rival. Lesbian are a eldritch horror as they removed 2 mens dream of a wife.
Loneliness turns people into monster's.
We won't. The desire is to be connected to a real living woman. Toys can't get sophisticated enough to make you believe what you prematurely know to not be true.
Yeah that's what meant by fully "functional". We already see it with people purchasing sex dolls and even the AI powered ones that have conversations. If a AI dolls is indistinguishable or at least good enough from a human female I bet we will see a change as the populous is satisfied.
Is this.. tilted slightly?
Am I leaning?
left-leaning, maybe
Mine curves to the left
Yes the text at least is not quite aligned
I sometimes think they turn conservative because women won't date them.
I'm pretty sure women don't want to date people who have any sort of disposition that leans towards hating them or believing that women are lesser than men.
Unfortunately, a lot of men learned that way of thinking early in life(from family and/or media) and it ruins any attempt at a relationship, then they blame women and run to the very people who set them up to fail for validation, or find new ones like that sex trafficker with the pizza boxes, or that canadian psychologist who sugar coats sexism online. Repeat ad nauseum.
I have an old high school friend who is very much into the whole Andrew Tate thing. His parents were separated, I don't know the details as to why, but I do know that his father was a lot more stable than his mother, and I do sometimes wonder if he had lived with his father, if he would have turned out better.
He also thinks the earth is flat because... otherwise a ball would roll off a table. QED.
So not exactly firing an all cylinders to begin with.
“Divorced dad energy” is one of those meme things that everyone likes to make fun of when a dude does anything, but no one likes to address that same poison when divorced moms act like fools.
My mother would drag me to various groups that would absolutely shit on “men” constantly, and I got to hear that constantly. It was weird growing up in that environment, but luckily for me it was before the redpill trash all over the internet. Managed to find some good friends in high school
That's a interesting point. My mother was substantially more mentally stable when I was a child then when my siblings were born.
Online is heavily skewed in women's favor unfortunately. I had a female coworker that had 100+ matches on bumble and kept complaining how hard it was too keep track of. She wasn't even very pretty and she had an empty pot for head. Meanwhile male coworkers really struggle. No surprise This will make some males bitter and lash out. Even if they do find a partner Worst part is if the social skills are bad it is a bad relationship. I hope we are not seeing a universe 25 style collapse.
Yeah I agree. Wanting to Go back the good old days is what is causing this trend. Though Realistically all the social skills in the world won't bag you the girl if you are average right now. I knew a few coworkers that wouldn't even talk to a guy unless he was a 666 man. 6 figures, 6 feet, 6 pack. No surprise they are single. I wonder if their POV changed overtime, they were in early 20s at the time. I know my old roommate lowered her standards super hard over 30 to bag a husband.
The Sample size is rather small from personal experience. I am curious if such data exists.
That's very true and likely why she felt so overwhelmed. No one is really winning. She would have had a really good match in there but drowned in a sea of options.
A really sad point. Though I think drowning in option is better for self esteem than 0. If males had plenty I doubt we would see such a trend.
A few folks have mentioned that these charts
A lot of young men in the US are reporting themselves as "not a Democrat or Republican", and that's causing a lot of this proportional shift. I would bet that characterizes a lot of folks on this site who are not conservative.
https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/13/24098780/politics-gender-divide-generation-z-youth-men-women
https://www.allendowney.com/blog/2024/01/28/is-the-ideology-gap-growing/
Exactly. I would be almost as upset with being classified as a liberal or a Democrat as I would be a conservative.
At the same time I know many people (my brother included) that claim to be "independent" because they think that the trump camp is somehow outside the conservative camp, and therefore respond "independent" on polls. Because they think "I'm not democrat or conservative, I just want to drain the swamp" and then support trump, who is literally a swamp.
I get classified as all three depending on who I’m talking to.
That's because when talking to tribalist types, you're seen as either with them or against them and in a system with 2 political parties "against them" means "supporting the other guys".
There is no independent thinking amongst the "party supporter" masses, only following and parroting of the party messages, so the idea of somebody being a genuinely independent thinker guided by personal principles rather than following some tribe or other is anathema to them.
On the flip side, in Europe extreme right parties are mostly being propped up by young men, while in other age groups men and women vote relatively similarly, which supports this finding.
Why do so many people on Lemmy insist on pretending that liberal/conservative aren't relative terms?
Every single time those words get used with their little l/c to mean "relatively liberal/conservative) I see multiple people go "well ackshully a Liberal is a right wing ideology!"
The actual opposite of conservative in this case would be progressive. Liberal isn't a relative term, progressive is. It's easy enough to tell from context but when there's already no info on how these graphs came to be it just adds to them being questionable.
Those ‘unaffiliated’s are just embarrassed republicans. Just like most of the centrists you’ll run across.
In the UK, where there actually is a centralist party, most of the "centralists" don't actually vote for them. Which really tells you everything you need to know about centralism. It's not a political ideology, it's just a refusal to engage.
And no way the UK is left leaning like that.
Edit: read Jane Jacobs system of survival
Have you read it? Don't judge too quickly!Actually on second thought nvm. If that's you're response then I'm out :)
Thanks for explaining. I did a bad job explaining it, but I'm only taking a short break irl and am just jumping into this conversation. I've removed that section of my comment.
The book explains this in more detail and I recommend it. We don't get much deep discussion into what it means to be conservative/liberal and the purpose of the book isn't to go into that but it does provide a framework. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs
But now your comment is just "here's 10 hour read that explains everything, I will not elaborate" like in this post: https://sh.itjust.works/post/26206134
You can at least leave info about what it should explain, at best you can summarise, but it is possible that you will not persuade people to read that.
From the wiki page, it looks like the idea behind the book is viable, but nothing is scientific about it, no research, no further developments, it's just how the author sees the system work. This may be insightful but should be taken with a large grain of salt
Why?
The opposite to conservative is progressive, not liberal
Especially in Europe where liberal is more typically used for economically liberal.
Which tend to be conservative socially.
Yes. Liberal is the opposite of "moralist" and sometimes "oppressive".
The US use of the word "liberal" is a bit shifted in the direction of "libertine" (same as libertarian, but strongly focused on personal freedoms of substance abuse and sexual promiscuity at the expense of economical\political freedoms to own catgirl slaves and shoot up crowds).
The opposite is Socialism, not progressivism.
Okay boomer
Not a boomer, I'm a Communist.
Wrong
In what way? Conservativism is a branch of Liberalism, just like Progressivism. They are all under the Capitalist umbrella of Liberalism. The opposite, therefore, is Socialism.
Congratulations, you have successfully redefined imprtant words in a way that makes your understanding of them fundamentally incomoatible with other people's, rendering clear communication impossible.
I don't know why this was your goal, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was intentional, because the only alternative is that you are less intelligent than a particularly dense house plant.
Never redefined any of it. Liberalism is the ideology supporting Capitalism, Progressivism is the left side of liberalism and conservativism is the right side. Progressives still support Capitalism, same with conservatives.
I mean it isn't. Progressivism only seems to exist as a word in America, because the USA has the red scares, and conflates communism and socialism, and so are scared of the phrase and had to reinvent their own.
In Europe, you have Conservatives (right wing market, socially conservative), Liberals (free market, but with positivity towards social reforms). Socialism or Democratic Socialism (positive social reforms, state involvement, but with democracy). Communism (economic distribution but more autocratic), and Social Democratic (somewhere between Liberal and Democratic Socialist). Socialism is where you're willing to consider the state getting involved in wealth redistribution.
It's better you understand political philosophy and how it is used and applies around the world to truly understand it. You cannot understand the spectrum, if you cannot zoom out from the Overton window.
That's not what Socialism and Communism are, though. Democratic Socialism itself is a nebulous and meaningless term.
Listen, I too can write several paragraphs painting the consequences of redefining the relevant key words in hand. I will be careful to avoid providing substance of the topic in hand while attempting to make you feel guilty and of poor character.
Do not misunderstand anything I say because I will try to make sure you think that your work actually harms people because your education and intelligence are insufficient and even subversive. If you do not, you will see that everyone else will be buying a nice lollipop for the event and add to the consequential sugar.
This explains why they are fat and sitting at a computer in their parent's basement. You won't be able stop it because no matter what you do, there are so many that the truth is inevitable for everyone involved; whether they bother to acknowledge such or not.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Not sure I fully agree with your take, but that’s beside the point. They said “wrong”, now that settles it. Sorry, maybe next argument 🤷♂️
Apparently I forgot this /s
They're not bucking the trend, the trend is that as women are becoming more liberal/progressive men are stagnating or regressing.
But yes at least they aren't literally nazis.
People like you are why we cannot discuss political ideas without being put into a bucket and given some horrific label. Being conservative doesnt make u sexist some conservative views are sexist same as some progressive view are sexist. Stop spouting hate like politics is a football team and practice critical thinking where you can take ideas from all perspectives.
This is out of date.
People are losing faith rapidly in the left because they don't seem to be for the everyday working class Briton like they used to be.
There is a big shift going to Reform now largely because they want to reduce immigration. The left deny the situation and the right have claimed they will reduce it every year then increase.
People are flooding to the "far right"* because they don't seen the main parties address the main issue they want addressing and have been talking about for decades at this point, generations even.
_* not actually far right. But the left love throwing that term around to anyone that has a different opinion to them. They just want lower immigration, which historically has been a left leaning ideology
Look I don't know how to tell you this but just because you live in a bubble doesn't mean everybody else does.
That is not "a big shift in the UK towards reform", don't be daft. They only have 4 MPs only two of which ever bothered turning up, they are about as politically relevant as my underwear.
Also Reform absolutely are far right they are basically Nazis, albeit brainless lazy incompetent ones. You need to go outside and interact with normal members of the human race rather than whoever it is you're talking to on the "I'm not racist but..." Facebook group
14% of the vote from a brand new party, with signs that's increasing. It not insignificant
You're taking data out of context. You can make it say anything when you do that.
Labour won with fewer votes than they got in the last election which they lost. That tells me that this was mostly a protest vote people weren't voting for any particular party that were voting for not to the conservatives.
But in the 2025 election the conservatives won't be in power and so there won't be a protest vote against them. If reform do well in those elections that would be evidence of a shift until then the balance of probability is simply that they were the obvious processed vote for the right-wing inclined that did not want to vote for the conservatives.
You cannot draw any conclusions from the results of such a politically unstable period.
Additionally I'm not letting you off the hook for in any way trying to suggest that the reform party are in any way shape or form anything but a bunch of bigoted misogynists. How dare you suggest that they are simply a right-wing political party that the other parties are trying to lambast in an attempt to discredit them. They are far right extremists, stop trying to defend them.
The average person wants lower immigration plain and simple.
That's what reform is largely winning votes on. Something that historically has been a left view.
They are no where near as bad as everyone makes out. People are trying to paint them as Nazis.
Nigel farage literally (as in he actually did this) posed in front of a poster that was styled on Nazi propaganda. The only people making them out to be Nazis are themselves, they are being Nazis and people are pointing it out, that's not people defaming them, that's people pointing out that they are being Nazis. People like you are allow the hard right thrive, the bigots and racists are allowed to exist because apologists like you make excuses for them.
Please be better. Or if you can't be better at least stop spreading your uninformed opinions on the internet, no one needs to hear the opinions of a Nazi apologist.
https://images.app.goo.gl/pL7xhiTGuwQPxKaKA
Here is a link in case you might want to possibly educate yourself. I recommended it because currently you sound like a tit.
Wow being against uncontrolled immigration is so Nazi.
Literally no other person could think immigration should go down for any reason or any amount without being a Nazi.
I'm really glad you showed me a photo of someone concerned with immigration when it's the number one issue in the country. Really proved that, that guy is a Nazi.
I do think he's a dickhead. But Nazis and reform are different.
This is young people, not red-faced beast men fighting outside the kebab shop with pool cues.
Do you know something about the UK I don't?
Please tell me about how the Tories link into this graph?
The graph appears to show that from approximately 2010 (Libdem & Tory coalition) onwards for women, and a few years later (when we somehow got a full Tory government) for men, the younger people shown on the graph, said or thought something along the lines of "this Tory government is awful and we need to move in the opposite direction".
Its about not voting for the tories. More than it is anything else.
Now there are more right options that will swing back. Hence how it is out of date.
I agree that "not voting for the Tories" was pretty much the main driver, but these are not "new options".
The Brexit Party's "surprise" increase this year, was in many ways just returning to the 10-15% that they received as UKIP in 2015.
In the two elections in between, they agreed to not contest many of the Tory seats, to not risk "splitting the vote" to help keep "evil Jeremy" out of power.
The Tory vote + Brexit Party vote, added together, is lower than the number who voted for either Boris Johnson, Theresa May or 2017 Jeremy Corbyn. Fewer people voted for Keir Starmer than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 or 2019 - so technically the biggest change in vote is probably "did not/unable to vote this year", with an increase of 3 million.
As ever, "didn't/unable to vote this year" won yet another successive landslide victory of about 20 million, or about the same as the top three parties added together.
Anyway, apologies for the tangent. The graph is particularly looking at younger people, who are on average more left leaning, and have become more so in the last 40 years. Though the recent mainstream politics/media shift towards the far right is absolutely terrifying, I don't think it's reflected in the young people shown in this graph.
As women gain independence, frightened men turn to patriarchal solutions. Hence a turd like JD Vance spouting hateful and controlling rhetoric on podcasts and Ahole Tate brainwashing adolescent boys. Fuck these people.
The study about low skill gamers being the most likely to be sexist over voice chat will forever be on my mind.
🌳 Die? No. We lost them, and now we cannot find them.
Now I hear Treebeard whining about modern females and how none of them want to be Entwives for alpha Ents
If you read the books, you'll find that you're not far off.
TGTOW
Another Lemmy post with no source in the main post.
What the fuck South Korea? Also you just know that sudden rise in liberal men in the UK is the Tories' doing.
SK is wild right now. Women are taking part in the 4B movement (no dating, sex, childbirth, or marriage. The Korean words start with "B"). There was a online feminist group that got people so heated they thought they were sneaking hand signals into "male" media and they were getting people fired. If certain characters didn't come out with risqué enough clothing, male netizens would blame some secret feminist in the company. Women are assaulted if they're confused for a feminist due to just their hairstyle. A book ("Kim Jiyoung 1989" I think) that is, like, baby's first feminist literature, can have your spouse leave you. Men say you can't date a woman whose read it. All the book is about is the subtle sexism women face. They have an epidemic of "molka," which are secret cameras in women's bathrooms among other places. Women tell each other to bring nail polish to paint over the screws to protect themselves. Their new president is looking to abolish the gender equality ministry and blames feminism for the low birth rate.
TL;DR: Yeah, it's pretty bad over there right now.
Edit: Here's a two part video that goes over this surprisingly well for being about gacha games. Part 1 and Part 2.
Holy fuck. There are legitimately third world countries better than this what the fuck.
Can confirm, it's comparatively (sometimes even without comparing) a shithole in every other way out here, but it's not NEARLY as bad for gender equality. Still pretty bad don't get me wrong, but at least the government isn't actively trying to dismantle institutions formed to combat gender inequality 🤷♂️
oh yeah, South Korea has gone off the rails recently. lots of news stories about men assaulting women for the assumption that they're feminists, anti-woman politicians being elected, women losing their jobs for being (or assumed to be) feminists, it's all Very Not Good.
The Tories are really good at convincing people to hate them, fuck the Tories
It's very easy because the Tories have recently decided that the reason people don't like them is because they're not fascist enough, so they've doubled down and decided to be more fascist. At least trying to be, but it's difficult to be fascist when you lost power due to being awful fascists.
Weirdly people didn't want that, and so now they're even less popular.
People have always hated the Tories, however I think the recent hate can go back to a particular prime minister whose grave is now a gender neutral bathroom.
In the north of England certainly. Not sure how much people in London care about Thatcher.
I was thinking more recently about Boris and his various illegal activities. Oh and the crashing of the economy by the disability hire. Or the fact that our most recent excuse for a Tory prime minister basically allowed the Extreme right-wing free reign because he was incapable of standing up to them.
Anti-feminism has taken a huge hold in SK. it's partially related to the draft, but that's nothing new. women have been getting increased respect over the past decades, esp in sharp contrast to the pre-war era when women didnt even deserve names beyond "X's mom"
Difficult to assess this info without knowing how the data was created.
Also hard to believe the American average is +20 leaning lib. The country is represented by a fascist party and a centrist party, and anything more left than the centrist party is considered "far left".
The graph is about young people, not the entire population. Young people in America are historically more progressive than older people.
Also why does liberal and conservative have to be on an absolute scale? The words liberal and conservative seem to me at least be about pushing politics in one direction or another. Because policy is always subject to change, shouldn't the words liberal and conservative be relative to the political system they exist within?
Yes, "liberal" and "conservative" are relative, not absolute terms. There's a concept known as the Overton Window which describes exactly this shift of what is considered the "center" and what is considered a radical left/right position in any given society at any given time.
The idea that people should vote for their representatives, for example, was once considered an extremist take that could ruin civilization itself if implemented. The Overton Window shifted and nowadays even most Fascists will at least pretend in public to agree with it.
And, I did miss that important detail.
It doesn't have to be an absolute scale of course, but then why show 4 countries where all seem to deviate from the center? Are these country graphs even comparable?
Yeah I agree, it's not a very good graph. I just get frustrated when people ridicule the US political system for everything. We have a lot to fix (like what's causing women to become more liberal), but I think we need to focus on what's actionable and reasonable to fix. We can't become +20 more liberal overnight.
The Y axis here is not an absolute international political compass. It measures which political party each person favors, and judging by that country's local standards categorizes that party as either left or right.
A rising number in the US chart means a larger number of people prefer democrats over republicans. It doesn't mean that people's stances are necessarily moving further left. Similarly, it's no coincidence that the inflection point where UK numbers rise by a lot correspond to Brexit: the party seen as responsible for the unpopular change lost a lot of support, but that doesn't mean the population has so sharply moved drastically more progressive in such a short time.
The US population is largely some variety of “liberal” meaning vaguely left. The problem is the structure of our government favors land, not population.
Conservative being down is a good presentation choice.
From a personal point of view, I agree, but playing devil's advocate, really the chart should be flipped so that the left/rightness is shown that way and the dates are on the vertical axis.
It'd also be good if the time periods matched, and if there was a source for the data.
The swapped colors aren't, though.
So probably -
Men want the days back when they were more in charge and didn’t have to worry about consequences so much.
Probably as an over reaction to lost wages and the feeling of being completely unable to secure financial freedom for their family if they even had one which likely makes them feel like failures thus the hard pivot back to forceful ideology.
I mean unfortunately expectations of what a "man is" hasn't changed much since pre world wars with added consumerism since.
So it's equality where the equality is worse for everyone and social stigmas still are abound. It's a powder keg.
It's weird that the axes of where "centre" is remain stable over time. Can you imagine comparing "left vs right" between the 1890s and the 1920s? Like a bunch of stuff happened in between, history happened, and that tends to redefine left, right and centre.
Great observation! This is called the Overton Window
The important thing here is to know how did they measure young people's political ideologies. I wouldn't expect it was self-perceived as currently, people have a hard time admitting they are conservative compared to admitting they sympathize with a conservative party.
If it was determined by a questionnaire, it would be interesting to see what questions were included. Maybe the questions weren't well planned and that's it. Maybe they equalled feminist takes to
progressiveliberal ones, which is something that can be discussed. In this case, I would be picky about the origin of the graphics.This seems to be the original source of this graphic. But it just says "FT analysis of General Social Surveys of Korea, Germany & US [...]"
If the importance of women's issues like reproductive freedom were overrepresented relative to other issues, this would definitely account for at least part of this difference. But "importance" itself is already a very subjective concept. It's hard to put numbers on these things and create a scoring system that's actually useful.
The gap sounds plausible, but I highly doubt the overall positions relative to 0.
E.g., the Federal Republic of Germany has had conservative chancellors for 51 years out of the 75 since it was founded. We did not have a constant left majority (I assume that is what they mean by liberal, since the actual sense of the term doesn't make sense as an opposite to "conservative").
Edit: I fucked up, this is only about people below 30.
These graphs only cover the demographic of 18-29 year olds, which historically do lean heavily towards progressive.
The difference by sex is the really interesting feature.
That explains it and I did indeed overlook it. Thanks for the heads up.
This is only a relative argument if you can prove the government accurately and granularly represents the population. That would be nice if it were true but speaking as an American, I find it hard to believe.
Keep in mind that our voting system is actually built so the parliament represents the popular vote as closely as possible. It's not just an assembly of winners of individual "winner takes all" decisions. The average being above 0 in the graph should indeed mean left parties would be in the majority more often than not.
Edit: Another comment reminded me that the graphs only show 18-29 year olds. That explains it somewhat.
I genuinely fear for future for women across the world
Lol yeah woman were much safer, better educated, and financially independent historically. /S
That's a different argument - yes, things were worse in the past than they are now. That doesn't mean that things won't get worse than they are now in the future.
It also doesn't mean they won't remain exactly as they currently are, or get better.
That's true, but it doesn't negate the point you are replying to.
Looks at past. Looks at future, well shit climate change is going to savage human life on earth. Checks notes woman are human. Shit bros your right I fear for womans futures too!
lol
Read "why women had better sex under socialism, and other arguments for economic independence"
I dont understand the joke
Oh I think there is going to be a sequel where she covere tops' rights within socialism
What's the source? I wanna learn about the weird unexpected drops in some countries.
For anyone else also interested, I went and had a look at the links Dessalines kindly provided.
The source on the graphs says "Sources: Daniel Cox, Survey Center on American Life; Gallup Poll Social Series; FT analysis of General Social Surveys of Korea, Germany & US and the British Election Study. US data is respondent’s stated ideology. Other countries show support for liberal and conservative parties All figures are adjusted for time trend in the overall population." Where FT is financial times.
It's not clear how the words "liberal" and "conservative" were chosen, whether they're intended to mean "socially progressive" and "socially traditional" or have other connotations bound with the political parties too, and whether the original data chose those descriptions or if they're FT's inference as being "close enough" for an American audience.
Unfortunately the FT data site is refusing to let me look at them without "legitimate interest" advertising cookies so I can't tell you much more or if there's any detail on methodology.
https://www.ft.com/content/29fd9b5c-2f35-41bf-9d4c-994db4e12998
https://archive.is/nLQ5D
Ohh wait, this is actually good for my dating chances. Gotta find the good in the bad...
Huh, that explains the 4B movement in S. Korea.
In my city, there's a Korean community and from my friend who is a teacher, those girls who left Korea hate Korean dudes and want to hook up with Americans.
I don't understand anything about Korean culture or k-pop.
But after reading about 4B, this is starting to make sense.
4B can be described as some kind of feminist, but it's also extremely reactionary.
Do shitty things for years in the pressure cooker until the pressure reaches it's peak, get an explosive reaction.
There's nothing about men in Korea being sexist that makes it worth supporting people who maliciously spread racial stereotypes or TERFism.
a Nier fandom?
Why does everything appear to appear at +15 across the board just before 1990?
Interestingly it looks like in 3 of 4 charts men have, at worst, returned to mean. It's the women getting more leftist. And I don't blame them.
Liberalism isn't the same as Left. It's not even in the same political axis.
You can't really read "more liberal" as being the same as "more leftist".
Left would be something like: "I want the greatest good for the greatest number".
Liberalism would be something like: "I want people to have the most freedom to do whatever they want".
You might notice that these two things collide in things like the existence of the super-rich, were for a liberal that's a good thing (they have maximum freedom) whilst for a Leftie it's a bad thing (wealth concentration reduces the access to resources for the many hence it directly goes against the greatest good for the greatest number).
Similarly centralizing control of part or the whole of the Economy (which decreases trade freedom) to achieve greater equality is absolutelly valid within the Leftwing principles and entirely against Liberal principles.
it's only in places like the US, were the entirety of Leftwing is about 4 congressmen, that Liberalism gets confused with Leftwing.
In graphs like these it is very much all smushed together. Otherwise they'd need a 3d plot.
If you want to get really technical too, liberalism and socialism have giant grey overlap areas. Classical Liberalism wasn't just about personal freedom, but also government by the people, for the people. Which is a collective good and freedom.
It's not nearly so easy as labeling one person a leftist and another a liberal. So above I use leftist in it's colloquial meaning of getting less conservative, literally moving to the left.
Yeah, I would classify them as mean
Well, honestly what political positions women have means less in "interesting times" like ours.
They are not strongly pressured by conservative men of their family and surroundings (if they have such), because tribal parts of politics rely a lot on crowd instincts, and those of women don't work exactly the same. They do participate in politics, but with the different kind of emotion.
For men a woman holding different views is usually not an existential enemy. They might ridicule that or dislike, that may look disgusting, but it's a different kind of attitude. It's pretty normal for women from families from authoritarian elites to have publicly liberal views. The dictator daddy won't punish his daughter for reposting something virtue-signalling against what he's doing. He knows it's of no consequence.
At the same time women, of course, see the tendencies around us and their views change accordingly.
But again, in the "interesting times" what men do may matter just a bit more, because there are power dynamics involved where women are disadvantaged due to both different tribal instincts and to men being more represented among people with power. In some sense political views are a kind of compensation.
So it's both bigger incentives for such views (with actual incels loudly talking) and less pressure (that's spent on threatening violence against male opponents).
I'm not an incel. Just thinking.
Is anyone brave enough to ask why?
Women are rightfully concerned about the loss of bodily autonomy. They don't want to live in the handmaids tale.
I'm sure that is part of it but proposing that as the sole reason seems unnecessarily reductive.
When pregnancy and child birth are such a monumental part of a persons life, and the ability to choose whether or not to go through that process is taken away, it makes a lot of sense why this is the 'sole reason' for some women. As someone who very recently gave birth, everything else in the world and other political topics are dwarfed by the absolute earth-shattering life event that is bringing a child into this world. I think it is something that people who haven't been through it themselves, or who are not empethetic can not wrap their heads around. But there is absolutely a reason why many women are voting liberal for abortion rights alone. That is the single freedom that contributes most directly to a womens adult life. While tax policies and national affairs have an impact on everyones day to day lives, reproductive rights have an acute impact on womens immediate futures.
Abortion is undoubtedly a big reason for shifting voting habits for a large number of women. However, it is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to the way conservatives, particularly conservative men, treat and talk about women.
I know women who describe themselves as pro-life and yet have moved away from the Republican party due to the way they have handled various GOP leaders sex scandals, rape accusations, and general attitude towards women. They don't want abortion rights restored and yet they are turning away from Republicans. That is why I say that viewing this shift in voting habits solely through the lens of reproductive rights is unnecessarily reductive. By doing so you are excluding women who are part of that shift from consideration both in this discussion and in the larger view of what women in America want their future to look like. Your experience, while not uncommon, is not universal and any discussion that frames a complex issue in such a way is missing part of the picture.
Oh there are absolutely women who have turned their backs on the conservative party for those reasons and remain pro life. Personally, I see the issues as interconnected. It feels like we see a headline at least once a month where a conservative politician had an extra marital affair and was perfectly fine insisting their girlfriend get an abortion so that they can maintain their squeaky clean image. Or if their daughter had premarital sex and her successful college career was in jeopardy they would see things differently. Rules for thee and not for me. The shift is obviously more nuanced than a single issue, but reproductive rights radiates through a lot of different issues because it has to do with specifically men and their belief that their opinion matters more than others.
Do those same women think other women should die for a miscarriage like has happened twice now because of its connection to abortion. Or how about the lady face a life sentence in prison for a miscarriage. I think you’re utterly discounting the seriousness of all of that.
You are exactly right. Thank you for not trying to pull extra information out of what I'm saying.
Bro really said that losing all right to bodily autonomy isn't a good enough reason to dramatically shift someone's political leaning
I didn't say that at all and if that's what you thought I said then your reading comprehension skills could use some work. I said reproductive rights are a part of a larger culture shift in how women vote. If even one woman has started voting against Republicans for reasons other than abortion access then your dumb assertion that they don't care about anything else falls apart. So maybe you should stop trying to simplify complex issues into easy to digest soundbites in order to make yourself seem like the most intelligent person in the room.
You're right, but man reading this is insufferable. You could be much more effective if you weren't trying to be a dick in your responses.
If you read the comment that preceded my response and came away thinking that I'm the one who devolved the conversation to this point then I'm going to have to disagree with you. That guy was clearly trying to stroke his own ego by putting someone else down and vapid grade school bullying tactics are something of a pet peeve of mine. My original comment was perfectly civil.
That explains the US, but that's about it.
For example Europe there are no movements towards making abortion illegal, quite the contrary.
They see what can happen over seas
True - the US of late has been a great inspiration for what NOT to do.
This is probably more of a symptom than a cause, but social media platforms pushing manosphere content isn't helping.
I wasn't paying attention for like 2 seconds and it went from "Men also have rights" to "Andrew Tate is a role model", like WTF internet, stop ruining good things, fuck.
Unfortunately, "Men's Rights" was a bait and switch. The Alpha/Sigma ideology says there can only ever be a handful of "True Men" worthy of human rights. Everyone else has to either prove themselves through combat or submit to being less than human.
Unfortunately it's not a bait and switch, there real issues in how we're failing boys and men are surely contributing to this concerning trend.
Especially when we blame the victims.
These "True Men" ass holes are simply swooping in to prey on the young men who've been left behind, like any cult leader would.
Only the poor ones. You know, the "betas".
They're driving the disparity. Artificially constricting the demand for labor in order to drive down wages. Privatizing public services to squeeze working people for their last dime. Bombarding audiences with FUD in order to get them to blame every conceivable external agent - illegal migrants, evil foreign governments, spies, terrorists, literal fucking space aliens - so that the public is in a constant state of anxiety and exhaustion. Busting unions. Busting street protests. Busting college campuses. Corrupting the foundations of the political system to shield themselves from accountability for their shady actions. Then dumping vast fortunes into policing and the military in order to unleash wave upon wave of violence on working class communities.
At the forefront of all of these moves are "Alpha" men. People who believe themselves entitled to enormous wealth and social privilege, extracting at the expense of the rest of us. Its only after we've been ravaged that we see the lackeys and sycophants of these self-entitled paymasters step back in to recruit for the next generation of gladiatorial fighters, street cops, and foreign mercenaries.
I remember when that was just a category of porn writing 😞
I recon its both, looks like the symptom makes the cause more potent makes the symptoms worse.
Andrew Tate blaming normal life issues on women and pushing teenagers to be very hateful against them is one big reason
If the issues young men had wherent real he wouldnt have the followers. We do account for 75% of suicides so Tate's diagnosis is correct just his treatment is wrong.
75% of suicide deaths. the number of attempts is about the same
"Dont send a women to do a mans job" - Andrew Tate
Wait u thought i was being serious?
He preys on vulnerable young men, yes, that's the point. There are healthier male role models online but I'm not sure youtube shares them widely.
Exactly. But i feel both sides simply see these young men as soldiers to be recruited to their army of ideology. Regardless their is definatly a crisis of purpose for all youths thats effecting men particularly badly.
This is such a wildly intelligent comment that I'm curious what the down voters think. Guessing either Tate fans or ignoramuses, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I downvoted because the fact that issues exists doesn't justify the proposed "solutions". It's like saying that bloodletting has a point because patients really were sick, those things are not causally related.
I think that even having no one talk about problems is better than having someone talk about problems to actively do harm and gain power. One part of my reasons is usually this is not the case, and some already talk about the same problems but are not heard. Another reason is that when a problem is widely spread and there is no one exploiting it or raising awareness, there exists a pressure to start doing just that. So even no one is better than Tate.
Ok but they never said it did. They just pointed out that saying "assholes like Andrew State are responsible" leaves out that there's a reason people go to him and thus is not the actual root problem
Wow, you're trash
Reason people go to Tate is not because issues exist, there's reason to people going to any liar or scammer and it's never the issue at hand, it's the illusion of a simple answer.
Have been discussing it with them and they are simply unwilling to give him any credit even if said credit is for highly successfull marketing of a wildly dangerouse religion like ideology to vulnerable youths.
Next thing we're going to do is what, not crediting Hitler?
It’s “The Woke”. Women are more visible in society as they are treated more equally, so certain (yes not all men) men see that as men losing rights and want to go back to “the good old days”
If you created a similar graph mapping the ideology gap between races or straight and LGBTQIA+ they’d look very similar.
The answer is simple the media is radicalizing people and gender is one of their primary motivations it is hand tailored to divide and conquer minds.
I agree. Any divide they can make they will make. Its also convenient as it means they can use their culture war propaganda for double action to distract the masses.
Rapid increases in the productive forces of South Korea has resulted in a progressive population of women and a hyper-reactionary population of men, the increase in productive forces was so rapid it caused a hyper-sharpening of contradictions with tradition.
to the privileged, equality is oppression. And therefore more pushback to maintain the status quo
Fascism is sociologically rooted in the sexual insecurity of men. That's why it's always men driving it.
Fascism is Capitalism in decline. Masculinity is a recognized part of fascism, but fascism is rooted in Capitalist decay, not in moral failures of men.
Fascism is capitalism when the capitalist class gets too successful, as soon as the capitalists realize they can establish fascism they always do.
Not quite. Fascism occurs when disparity rises, the petite bourgeoisie are being proletarianized, and collaborates with the bourgeoisie against rising class awareness and leftism among the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat. It isn't a symptom of success, but a defense mechanism.
Yet capitalism "failing" somehow consistently happens in every capitalist economy, at this point its basically a feature of capitalism.
Yes. Capitalism is unsustainable, and naturally trends towards disparity and Imperialism.
Yet what I find extremely intriguing is that the capitalist class profits immensely when capitalism decays and therefore actively contributes towards its downfall. Therefore in a sence fascism is when the capitalist class is too successful and when nobody pushes back against their decay and corruption.
Women live in the same declining capitalistic society as men, yet they are far more resistant to fascism. That's not to say there is something wrong with men or masculinity. Society puts different pressures on men and women so they react differently.
I mean, if history lessons in Italy taught me anything, the 'super uomo D'Annunziano', "D'annunzio" and the original italian 'fascism' are pretty much linked.
Do you have a reason to think this or did it just sound good in your head
There is a ton of academic interest in the relationship between sexuality and fascism. It was first noted in "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich after WW2. My comment is, of course, a massive oversimplification of a complex social dynamic.
It's the same dynamic that made US racists paranoid that black men wanted to rape white women when, in fact, their deeper fear was that white women wanted to have sex with black men. Fascists are particularly sensitive to sexual relations between "their women" and whomever they have chosen to blame for all their misfortunes.
So facism is mens fault? I wonder how that effects a young man who isnt a facist while they are developing? Ur narrative is actively harming young men and driving them to be the very thing u swore to drstroy.
No, it's not "men's" fault, but the people who's fault it is are primarily men. That's not an opinion, that's just history, not to mention what's happening before our eyes. Even women who are fascist push patriarchy. There is no point in debating whether fascism is primarily a male driven phenomenon. The only legitimate question is why?
this is kind of meaningless to point out, since men also had the power in every country that turned towards socialism, gave or took away rights, started and ended wars, etc.
So men have no issues and the only reason men are listening to tate is cos they are hatfull evil bastards?
Im so happy to learn that women didnt go along with fascism or support it in any way. If u knew anything about history u'd have heard of Magda Goebbels, Irma Grese, Eva Braun, Margaret Harker, Yukiko Sugishita etc.
Abortions are about the liberty to do with onself as one wishes, what does this got to do with u blaming men for fascism? Having your gender (something where most people derive a majority of their identity) blamed for the entirety of facism and its hanouse actions isnt exactly fair or a good way to raise a child.
This is bad faith child-like insults not a civilised discussion of ideas undertaken by real adults. I stand against fascists and i will not let you paint me as one.
Yes exactly, im simpky saying thwy wouldnt be listening if he hadnt resonated with their issues.
If we go back to your original claim that facism is entirely mens fault and this claim that women had no power does this make these women innocent? Also by ur logic men did literally everything else including go to war to fight facsism. You implication here is that its not human history but mans history and if i where i women id find that pretty demeaning.
Again attacking the person is not good faith discussion i refuse to engage in bad faith insults.
The only possible explanation for any of this is that men are bad and we should definitely not examine the underlying causes and material conditions at all.
Great idea im sure them killing themselves at record rates must be an anomoly.
Well, you can prove anything with facts.
Apparently you are, god speed you poor thing.
Im not afraid of downvotes or getting my feewings hurt.
Women's lib has been great for women but not so good for men. So men are becoming reactionary.
Bullshit. Most men suffer under toxic patriarchy as well. I absolutely love that this shit is finally getting pulled into the spotlight. I have not suffered a single iota of harm from anything "woke" and I would argue that no honest man has either.
Dishonest men still get to vote though
How do men suffer under patriarchy? Do u really want to be the one blaming 75% of suicides on men not being allowed to beat their wives? Sounds like ur calling all cis men evil bad people. I wonder what such a narrative would do to a young man trying to develop a sence of self, identity, and personal ideology?
Yep. Toxic masculinity wants us to work ourselves to death without complaining to anyone. So our mental health is in the fucking toilet. If you're not working enough, you're not providing and you're not a real man. If you do work enough but show any emotion that's not a "manly" emotion (anything involving tears outside of a funeral or during Old Yeller or anything that's too excited) then you're not a real man.
I could write a whole dissertation on how young men get sucked into that whole toxic ideology due to the promises of being able to have a family and a house. And it's all a fucking lie.
Male suicide is getting worse every year the patriarchy is getting destroyed more every year, im simply pointing out the correlation is backward sof what u claim.
The data correlates exactly the wrong way for this to be true.
Exactly but causation does not come without correlation. Causation is a subset of correlation.
Economic disparity should be effecting the genders equally unless you are saying women are doing better financially.
Queer and gender nonconforming men get an immense amount of abuse due to patriarchy. Even gender conforming straight boys and men do if they show sensitivity in any real capacity. The abuse of boys and young men for the sake of making them “man up” is hardly an unusual in many areas.
What? This has nothing to do with the comment you replied to.
No, this is a ridiculous conclusion you drew from someone saying patriarchy hurts everyone.
What the fuck?
Just because one side gets more rights, doesn't mean the other side loses rights.
I guess if the rights you miss is the ability to beat your wife without repercussions.
Sauce, for those interested - https://www.ft.com/content/29fd9b5c-2f35-41bf-9d4c-994db4e12998
So it might be worth taking it with a pinch of salt because I'm betting it's using the very dumbed down "liberal vs conservative" 'murican political view. Maybe skew all results down 3-6 points.
I believe that a significant factor for this can be attributed to mental development and maturity of boys lagging behind that of girls of the same age, during formative years. And, please read on, if you assume my argument is "boys dumb, conservatives dumb. Q.E.D."
The second factor is an education system where this offset in mental development/maturity is further confounded. Boys don't typically do as well, because sitting idle and being a "good boy", is more challenging. This leads to a path for boys to start working earlier, while girls get higher degrees. (I assume the trends for higher education by gender, to be similar, if not, then that can falsify this hypothesis).
What a person then observes they get from society, vs what you pay in terms of taxes, is skewed between these two groups, and highly correlated with gender.
If this hypothesis has any validity to to it, then one could argue that a way to mitigate this is by correcting the negative causes. Where the fundamental root cause might be improved by revisiting how education is failing boys in particular.
The challenge with this is that if the conservative parties' policies are driven by what can make more people vote conservative, then this will be a negative feedback loop. The worse you make it for a certain group of people that vote for you, the more that group is willing to vote for you.
I think the issue is simpler, in that the traditionally dominant group statistically reacts negatively to the levelling of the field and their loss of control and power over the other group. This and the fact that it's statistically harder to see the oppression and feel for it when you are not affected by it(and this goes for every form of oppression).
That's why there are so many incels conservatives and more lesbians, the numbers talks from themselves.
Sounds like the women did better advance planning if they're still getting laid.
They just got lucky timing the market. Nothing more.
Meanwhile, men are actively making themselves less desirable to women by becoming more conservative
Sounds like you got paper hands for lesbians there ape.
Here, have some unsourced data on subjective tendencies.
Nah, that doesn't count as data just yet then.
Especially not at a point in time where someone like Trump is said to represent "Conservatism".
Why won't anyone date me?
In more categories than one. Could you be more specific?
You were correct before you even answered
The good news is that almost universally, women vote in greater numbers than me. So on average its still breaking to the left.
How does it start with women being more conservative than men in Germany and the US?
Being less educated and living the traditional life of sitting at home and doing house work.
Easy.
It's like a trick. Priest are basically just pimps. You kids...well, yeah...you either get it or you just won't believe anyone but the pimp's word.
There is a kind of shorter-term marriage in Shia Islam which sometimes may approach prostitution in practice.
But generally no. A traditional European marriage is not a worker servicing a client.
Not talking about the adults here.
In the US it starts in 1985, which is about a decade after the Vietnam war, which obviously hit men a lot worse then women.
For Germany it was a similar thing. Conscription to fight in the potential war within Germany. So a decent chance of having to fight and die.
My guess is from a rise in hatred of homosexual men during the aids epidemic in the 80s maybe?
Canada is so fucked. I understand the fatigue with Justin Trudeau and the Liberals but if PP wins it truly is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
We deserve whatever comes from the next election. A person is smart. People are dumb.
There is no "fatigue" with Justin Trudeau.
People are pissed off and struggling because of the decisions that their municipal or provincial government make, and then misattribute that pain to the federal government.
Yet, they'll vote conservative, not realizing this.
Housing affordability, healthcare, education, traffic congestion, crime, homelessness, childcare, or even snow removal ARE NOT the responsibility of the federal government.
Rather than buying "fuck Trudeau" stickers and flags to put on their oversized pickup trucks, maybe voters should learn how our government is structured.
I strongly disagree and anecdotally the sentiment plays out.
You're also ignoring the litany of bullshit the Liberals have fumbled during their time in office as well as the multiple very public scandals around what amounts to a very publicly perceived "not giving a shit about Canadians".
They are everyone's responsibility don't try to pass the buck. The Fed's have an obligation just as much as provincial and municipal.
As someone who leans left and has voted Liberal on multiple occasions making it out like they're the victim is complete and utter bullshit.
I highly doubt most of the “fuck Trudeau” sticker people have no clue what he has or hasn’t done. They just hate him because he’s on the other team.
On a side note I don’t think I’ve ever seen the sticker NOT on a giant truck.
Halp!!!
Those letters mean absolutely nothing to me
Canadian politics: red, Liberal party (center); blue, Conservative party (right); orange, New Democrat party (left); green, Green party (was kinda conservative, then had a meltdown around identity politics); BQ are kind of French separatists.
The colors are also meaningless as well since there was no global definition of each color means respective to political leanings. So it's basically a meaningless picture. At least the OP graphic (while it has some pretty big problems) tells you which is left and which is right.
They’re Canadian political parties.
Yeah I got that from context but I wouldn't just dump a UK political chart on everyone and expect them to be able to understand it not least because the colors all opposite to what you would expect from a US centric point of view
Red is liberal blue is conservative
Here you see the chinese meddling in other countries' politics. The canadians are so brainwashed by the chinese that in canadian elections they vote for the Communist Party of China!
Weird that men used to be more liberal at any point.
So here's the question - is the scale consistent over time? That is, do we consider the same ideas left/right wing in 202x as we did in 199x?
Let's assume it is. We're seeing men lean towards the center/right, and a lot of people are asking why. The trouble is, the answer isn't one people like to hear - in our headlong pursuit of equity, we're introducing a lot of inequality. You lift the ladies up, while you let the men climb - all based on the assumption that the women had further to climb so what you're doing is levelling the field.
Countering this is a sympathetic voice, one offering to bring back equality or offer a different kind of equity. Casting gender equity as a zero sum game, and pushing for equality aimed at the ones not being lifted up.
I often hear the "uneducated men" argument, but that's just an ugly echo from the past serving those it once oppressed in a bitter irony. The reality is that even educated people can fall for propaganda. Especially when voting in what they see as their own self interest.
If the scale would not be consistent, the results is actual worse. The whole political spectrum is moving towards the right. Traditional left wing parties here in Germany doing right wing stuff is getting normal.
And I don't see any left party in the U.K. or U.S. parliaments.
Cries in UK
Hopefully, in the distant future (as t -> inf), we will all become conservatives. Not out of resistance to change, but because we did so well: We have progressed to such an optimal point that any further step (progress) would lead to something worse. Maybe the trends reflect this?
??? So many holes in the way this data is presented
As a Transfem, it's because conservatives suck (granted I despise all forms of liberalism).
Also why the hell is liberalism considered "left-wing" its center right at most.
The people who process these data have limited vocabulary or need to speak to those who do.
Political education in the US and many of the countries that hold these polls is awful. I'd trust a middle-schooler from Cuba, Vietnam, or China more than an ivy-league-educated polysci graduate when it comes to political awareness.
Did you just say conservatism is a form of liberalism?
In the United States the Republicans follow a form of Liberalism, Libertarians a form of Classical Liberalism, and Democrats a form a Neoliberalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal
Liberalism supports capitalism, nothing about it is left wing. Hell even Social Liberalism isn't left wing.
It sounds like you're thinking of Libertarianism which is a subset of liberalism, but they are distinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
"private property"
Yeah, not left wing.
One thing not left wing and it's all right wing? Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Liberalism supports capitalism and private property, thats not left wing. Leftism isnt "when government does stuff", its worker owned economies and true progress (no unions dont count as a worker owned economy). There are centrist ideologies which aren't strictly speaking left or right like Social Democracy and Georgism but Liberalism isn't in that category.
Hey can you pls give me the source? I want to look into that.
So many men who will never get a girlfriend and not understand why. Social media influencers were a mistake.
Hey look if you start taking away white male privilege they freak out when they find out people of other races, genders and creeds are better than them, who knew?
Then why are young men being disproportionately affected? Older men are not swinging like this.
Older men are generally already in a position of benefit, locked in a system where they cannot be taken down from their position of power. Reforms are coming at the beginning of the chain (entrance to university, internships and early job opportunities). Young men in families where their father/grandfather were in systems that benefited them - and also nepotism - have the understanding they will need to do very little to succeed. They have not put the effort in because they were told they would not have to compete.
Have a look at old laws for where you live in the world. Find out whether your mother or grandmother actually had the opportunity for higher education, or even whether she could get/keep a job after she had children and then form your own conclusions from there.
I'm surprised most comments here try to give any other explanation but this.
South Korea has one of the worst reproduction rates of the world, caused by women deciding to not choose a man to spend their life with but to live their own life. Which apparently causes men to freak out and go conservative
It’s almost as if these “traditional conservative values” have something to do with women having less agency in their lives.
Nono you see only with a strong man a woman is free to be a real woman! Free to look pretty, get pregnant, make the house tidy and cook delicious food. The things women enjoy!
/s Just in case I wasn't being over the top enough to make this obvious sarcasm a
I recall someone saying in India gay men are more acceptable because it removes a rival. Lesbian are a eldritch horror as they removed 2 mens dream of a wife. Loneliness turns people into monster's.
Anyone wanna take bets that the datatrend will change once we have fully functional Gynoids?
We won't. The desire is to be connected to a real living woman. Toys can't get sophisticated enough to make you believe what you prematurely know to not be true.
Yeah that's what meant by fully "functional". We already see it with people purchasing sex dolls and even the AI powered ones that have conversations. If a AI dolls is indistinguishable or at least good enough from a human female I bet we will see a change as the populous is satisfied.
I wonder why Dessalines is posting this sort of stupid charts
Is this related to differences in prefrontal cortex maturity rates in young adults?
ok but this age group also doesn't vote.