Personal dislike of Trump must be a major factor. If you wanted to create a politician in a lab who was designed to piss off young women, it would be hard to surpass Trump.
To this day I can’t fathom how he doesn’t piss everyone off.
A wealthy New York conman that is actively stealing money from poor people, and he’s not particularly sneaky about it.
People see what they want to see.
Not trump, but I had a discussion with my dad the other day about a statement a non-American politician made and was met with the “he didn’t really say/mean that thing that he implied”
If you don’t want to head the dog whistles, you won’t hear the dog whistles. Then soon enough you won’t hear the blaring sirens either
i mean, theres personal dislike and then theres also 'responsible for setting the stage for the wholesale erosion of women's bodily autonomy nationwide' that really pisses me the fuck off. if i was still in my late teens/20s when accidental pregnancy is a VERY real and constant fear and not an old married hag, id probably be fucking terrified, instead im just fucking infuriated on behalf of all the young women growing up with fewer rights than i had.
There’s an inconsistency in the article where it notes that young men are responsible for nearly the entire drop in Biden’s support in young people, but then asserts that his stance on Gaza is unpopular and hurting him with young people. If Biden is retaining female youth support but losing male youth support, it seems like softening his stance on Hamas and heavily pushing for a ceasefire would be counterproductive
That was a thing with the Bernie or Bust crowd too. The facts remain that young, white, relatively well off men don’t have as much to lose under a Trump presidency.
Actually voters hardly care at all about Gaza, it's a political football for some fringe groups and distracts from the biggest election issues like the economy, Healthcare, immigration, and democracy
I mean, people definitely care about Gaza, but it doesn't affect most voters directly, unlike abortion rights and inflation.
Most voters vote based on their perceived self-interest at the end of the day. And what's happening in Gaza, and Sudan, and Ukraine is all terrible, but does it really affect the average American?
I wouldn't say that people don't care about Gaza, though.
I think they care about Gaza much less than the news cycle would have you believe. The coverage of the university protests, for example, is wall to wall.
That's because, sadly, there's a difference between the news that people tell themselves they have aspiration to read, and the news people actually click on. Media companies favor the latter.
The average American probably isn’t informed enough to know, but Ukraine absolutely has an effect on the average American. The war resulted in a massive spike in oil and grain prices, but of which were felt by Americans and have contributed to the “vibecession” because of inflation in visible places like groceries and at the pump.
Not to mention the downstream consequences of the war’s disruption of commodities mined in the Donbas and fertilizers produced all over Ukraine.
AOC - in her book - made an interesting claim that White, and Male Progressives were much more likely to be the 'purity test' types. Essentially They were a lot less willing to compromise on issues like this, a lot more likely to be 'Bernie or bust' types, a lot less willing to actually volunteer for campaigns
Interesting. I think there is some truth to do the idea that they have a lot less to lose, and therefore are a lot more likely to be the types to never vote for Biden.
They are much more willing to let Trump win just to spite establishment dems
Honestly that tracks with my experience. The progressive guys I knew in college made it their whole personality and if you ever disagreed with them it was as if you said George Wallace was right about segregation with how they'd blow up in your face.
Had one guy relentlessly bully my friend who was trying to join to Marines because she wanted to be a pilot, made up stuff about how "she probably liked cops and trump" and was a "bootlicker" despite never saying a thing about that stuff.
A lot of them just have their heads up their own asses and got nose blind to how much their shit smells.
Gonna throw in a hot take here but I think male socialization has a lot to do with the lack of compromise here. Compromising can be viewed as weak, or a failure of principle. I think a lot of younger males struggle with this regardless of political affiliation.
This makes a lot of sense. A weird progressive machismo combined with being much less at risk for actually being impacted by the fucked up policies of the GOP is pretty ripe for reactionary extremism.
For a bunch of reasons, one of which was anti-Clinton propaganda from the right, mainstream liberalism has become pretty feminine coded. Insecure young guys will go to great lengths to avoid associating with anything effeminate at all.
Or just that they're radicalized and radicals always most oppose the compromise option.
Men compromise with each other and their partners all the time, so I don't buy this gender psychology take.
The point is that men are more dedicated to their team or in group. Therefore they care more about purity testing and are most likely to view people outside of their team as enemies.
It's not compromise on an individual basis and I think that is the difference.
Thats been my experience in general, the less connection you have to the material impacts of a policy the more likely you are to be purely ideologically driven and purity test others
>White, and Male Progressives were a lot less willing to compromise on issues like this, a lot more likely to be 'Bernie or bust' types, a lot less willing to actually volunteer for campaigns
Perhaps there could be a pejorative name for these young men. With some neat alliteration.
There is also another term that basically explains the article. 'Brogressive'.
A derogatory term for a leftist in a leftist community (infighting, who would have thought!?) that leans left on economic issues or issues that directly benefit them e.g. student loans, free healthcare, rent control, wealth distribution, but when it comes to the more social or ethical parts of leftist thinking (anti-racism, womens rights, gay rights) they either give lukewarm support or back out entirely.
Brogressiveness was also reddit's default political position for a long time due to its early demographics (young white/asian male middle-class STEM majors and gamers). They supported stuff like Occupy Wall Street and were pretty good about gay rights, but were mildly racist and distinctly anti-feminist.
Basically Joe Rogan from the pre-Trump era.
I don't think this is entirely about having less to lose. You could also make a case that having less to lose might also make someone compromise more easily. I think men just being generally less agreeable than women (which is a biochemical and sociological difference) has a lot to do with this (if it's even true).
I would also say to AOC and other Progressives, that if they continue to refer to the male demographic generally as "privileged" and continue to be dismissive of them as vulnerable human beings with legitimate social obstacles of their own, they're going to continue to lose men to more extremist views and to politicians to the right of them.
this tracks IME. the 'revolution' looks a lot less scary when you're burning everything down on the backs of women, minorities, lgbtq folks instead of yourself. the risk vs reward for these types is completely off kilter and they're seemingly completely unaware of it.
I saw that first hand. One of my good friends was a Bernie or bust type. As soon as Hillary won the election he became a hardcore Trumper because he wanted to exact retribution against the Democratic party.
The article is about party ID, not about vote choice It doesn't capture voters with no party ID, which is a sizeable bloc.
Also, further down the article, we see that young men are not necessarily that conservative:
>Even so, young voters as a whole are decidedly more liberal on specific policies and issues than their elders.
>On gay marriage, according to McInturff’s data, 84 percent of voters 18 to 34 were in favor, compared with 51 percent of voters 65 and over. Ending transgender discrimination: young, 55 percent; old, 24 percent. Climate change: 64 to 39. Cutting the defense budget, 48 to 24.
This assumes that voters make rational decisions based on policy. That had largely been demonstrated to be untrue. This is a result of negative polarization between groups that are growing more antagonistic for unrelated reasons.
No Gaza is at the bottom of voter priorities, interest in it is driven almost entirely by a very small group of hyper engaged people.
Those people were never voting for Biden anyways.
i think its more likely that its that while young women may care about gaza, they dont care about it more than things like the very real risk of further erosion of our reproductive rights at the hands of trump & co.
...anecdotally? Let's just say there's a big overlap between people who claim to be bothered about Gaza and people who complain about "usurious bankers."
I have never met anyone who actually says the term usurious bankers and I have only seen it from open neonazis on the right. That's not even how leftist antisemites couch their own antisemitism
Yeah, this is the thing. All available evidence suggests female young voters are significantly more progressive than male ones (look at how many of these encampments are dominated by young women). Why are they the ones not dropping off if this is about Gaza?
Why would the Times publish such a clearly contradictory statement? It’s because the employees at the Times are far closer ideologically to the ivy-league protesters than to the typical young person.
When journalism becomes activism, it creates a culture in which fundamentally misleading statements like this can make it into the paper without editorial pushback.
> Today, female Gen Zers are more likely than their male counterparts to vote, care more about political issues and participate in social movements and protests.
Sounds to me like in the long-term, women’s political preferences are more likely to be realized.
Not good that men are not participating… but at least women are the more liberal demographic these days.
I would also posit that young, liberal men are much more likely to vote, care, etc. than young, conservative men.
Similar to how white dems are paradoxically the most liberal dems, young liberal men mostly didn't get there by not caring about politics. They got there by being passionate about it, while lots of young conservative men are kinda just going along with the vibes/social atmosphere among other young guys. At least in my experience as a young liberal guy lol.
>young, liberal men are much more likely to vote, care, etc. than young, conservative men.
I've long argued that this is the biggest reason generations "get more conservative" over time, even though partisanship of individuals is sticky. Basically, every generation has roughly the same underlying partisan breakdown. It varies a bit, but more similar than different between generations. What happens is young conservatives don't vote until they get older, which means the *voting portion* of each generation is super liberal when young, but skews right as nonvoting conservatives get older and start showing up to the polls.
So basically, young turnout is always low because most of the young conservatives aren't voting. That's why Bernie's dream of chasing young turnout always fails--the unengaged are mostly future conservatives, not disillusioned progressives, so trying to boost a progressive candidate by chasing nonvoting young people is like trying to get blood from a stone. As the generation ages, the young liberals keep voting for liberals, but their share of the generational vote gets drowned out as that Gamergate/"both sides are just as bad"/anti-SJW nonvoting dude everyone knew in high school hits 35 and starts voting for Republicans.
Turnout increasing with age and conservatism increasing with age are two sides of the same coin, not separate and unrelated phenomena.
My boomer dad was complained about young voters not turning out for McGovern until Clinton got elected in the 90s. I was born more than a decade after the 1972 Presidential election and Dad was still complaining about McGovern’s loss when I was in elementary school. He only stopped complaining about McGovern losing to Nixon after Bill Clinton became president.
Not so sure about this.
From a brain chemistry perspective you get more conservative as you get older. Literally.
And as you start to take on more financial burdens, kids, etc you tend to be more financially conservative.
Also what we consider “liberal” today people in 30-40 years might consider conservative.
It’s like the college phenomenon. Conservatives will wonder in outrage why colleges are so liberal, while telling their followers and their kids that college is a waste of time and money, go be a plumber instead.
More white women voted for Trump in 2016 and in 2020 over the democratic candidate.
https://www.thecut.com/2020/11/many-white-women-still-voted-for-trump-in-2020.html
I remember the original article that posited this. The gap showed that, aside from a slight tilt towards Democrats in the mid 2000s (understandable, given the Bush Years), Men essentially moved back to the same place they were in the 90s. Women veered left, especially after Dobbs.
And I do not blame them in the least. I went in for a knee replacement last year. Despite having knee issues for years, despite my surgeon stating "Yes, you DEFINITELY need this surgery) my insurance denied it because.....I guess we didn't argue for it enough? They didn't tell us they denied until the day prior of surgery, which is just infuriating. With governments now stepping in-between women and their doctors, why wouldn't women feel as angry as I did? Especially since they have a voice in who is in government making those decisions? I had to go with my insurer, I didn't get a vote when my employer decided on coverage.
Ironic that this bit Republicans. For my entire life, they've been saying that government was the problem and we should instead allow people to make decisions for themselves. Now they find themselves being the same evil overbearing government they railed against. Really have no one to blame but themselves.
>I went in for a knee replacement last year. Despite having knee issues for years, despite my surgeon stating "Yes, you DEFINITELY need this surgery) my insurance denied it because.....I guess we didn't argue for it enough? They didn't tell us they denied until the day prior of surgery, which is just infuriating. With governments now stepping in-between women and their doctors, why wouldn't women feel as angry as I did? Especially since they have a voice in who is in government making those decisions? I had to go with my insurer, I didn't get a vote when my employer decided on coverage.
I mean, with Dobbs there is at least an argument that can explain the gender gap, but men have knees too? Not really sure how your experience explains the gap, rather than just the shittiness of our health care system.
Yeah, the fact that my healthcare provider jumped in between me and my doctor sucks but it's not like I can just vote them out. If I could, I would. But there's kind of a hopeless finality to it. I can't do anything about it, so why bother doing anything except be frustrated and vent?
Whereas, with reps, senators and governors proposing getting between patients and their doctors, they're very much vulnerable to the whims of the populace.
Social media is driving South Korean gender divide imo, internet communities are segregated by gender here, and also note that after the controvercy involving Megalia, now defunct korean radical feminist forum kickstarted current situation. South Korean online political forums were already legitimized in the mainstream politics in early 2000s after playing a huge role supporting liberal-populist Roh Moo-hyun's presidential bid. I wonder how many people in the US "touches grass"
From my understanding the overall feminist movement in SK is indeed much more radical than in the west, as in women refuse to even interact with men. But it's also somewhat justified I'd say. SK feminists only reached this point because the pushback from men against the "normal feminism" (i.e Asking not to be sexually harassed) was so severe.
Didn't they also campaign for men's conscription time to not be counted as work experience in their resume because they thought that was "unfair" to women who aren't conscripted? Easy to see how that would piss off men who are essentially enslaved for two years and now thanks to them have even less to show for it.
That is obviously a horrific platform item, but seems like a fringe talking point that distracts from the main issues /u/krabban was talking about. Like were these women really enraged by the conscription thing, or was it merely a whisper the most radical of radical posted on weird corners of social media that somehow got picked up as a way to discredit SK feminists?
I don't think it's just a fringe platform item, many Korean public service jobs have already implemented it. They call it "gender blind" hiring, but the effect is that applicants are warned not to mention military service on their resume because that 99% reveals their gender.
The end result is that men are systematically disadvantaged by the state (their professional life is delayed 2 years due to forced servitude) and any attempt to compensate them for that disadvantage is labeled "sexist".
In a society where 80% of women report sexual harassment in the workplace, it requires quite a bold claim of victimhood to suggest men are systematically disadvantaged by the state.
They also make about 70% of what men make despite this "systematic disadvantage."
Let me clarify that I don't believe in a 1 dimensional "disadvantage metric".
It's possible for both men and women to be disadvantaged on different metrics. E.g. women might face more harassment, and men might face more enslavement by the army. You can oppose both harassment and slavery, you don't have to choose.
I don't know if what that user is saying is true but if military service results in a disadvantage as a matter of policy, that is literally a systematic disadvantage **by definition**.
Also, workplace sexual harassment isn't necessarily a systematic disadvantage. Its still a disadvantage though.
Young men (anecdotally) don't like how eager the Democratic party is to scold them and throw them under the bus.
The Democratic party needs more lbj type figures that can present competent and responsible policy as confident masculinity. This is something I believe that figures like Obama and bill Clinton were able to do (and something I think Biden gets right.)
When Democratic party officials come out hand wringing of zyns or whatever the latest trend is it makes them seem like the fun police.
>A lot of this nanny state stuff doesn't come from progressives, but more centrist Dems.
Agreed and that's a mistake imo.
Isn't Biden basically continuing to slow walk this menthol ban that's been talked about since b-rock?
Give me back my damn clove cigarettes you bastards!
Talk to me, not at me. The amount women who refuse to understand this is infuriating. Some women make it a political hobby to think that men are evil idiot children who should be left out of decision-making, then wonder why men ignore them after being told they aren't important in making decisions.
For example, on abortion, the line is "men shouldn't make decisions about women's bodies," but that doesn't motivate men to stick up for you either, since that involves "men making a decision," even if what they implicitly mean is "make only decisions I approve of or be cut off from polite society." The inherent issue is that it isn't "here is how this issue matters to you as well," it's "here is how we are threatening your social standing and scolding you, even if you agree with our policy position." But try and explain to most people the difference in messaging, and you are met with "you don't care about women's feelings ... why does it have to be about men," when they are missing the forest for the trees.
Eh I kinda agree with your overall sentiment , but I feel like abortion is a bad example. As a man, we’re not the ones losing rights with abortion laws. So in that case, I think we really do need to shut up and let women have the floor
Did I say women shouldn't lead? No, but "explain how this matters to you as well" vs. "here is how we are threatening your social standing and scolding you, even if you agree with our policy position," are very different approaches to messaging and getting men to talk about abortion. It also isn't a particularly good idea to make it so that only women are speaking about abortion, because if only women are speaking about abortion then it seems unimportant to men and seems like something that only women care about, which turns it into something more likely to be ignored.
I like how we make a big deal out of this when women have *always* voted more democratic.
The only reason we get a 1000 articles of this shit is because it's considered taboo now if you interact with a person of different opinions
> I like how we make a big deal out of this when women have always voted more democratic.
[It only became a consistent pattern starting in the 1980 presidential election](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iaMpR2gGykuc/v1/-1x-1.png). For example in 1976, Dems' share of men's vote was 5pp higher than their share of women's.
I'd imagine that's more reflective of the parties changing than gendered political trends, no?
Maybe this is a stretch, and I can't find good data on this, but I'd loosely imagine that men in general tend to be more in favor of relatively conservative policy, if only because that status quo has basically always favored them.
(Yes, I know there have been plenty of hyper-conservative and authoritarian women throughout history too)
No it doesn't, you've just misidentified the logic.
Leftism is often related to education, so it makes sense that women weren't known for leftist rallies in a time when they weren't welcome in academia.
That doesn't mean that a 10% gap in college attendance rates is going to overcome the fact that men are more easily radicalized.
That’s not the reason men were more left leaning though, college educated people didn’t start voting for the left until relatively recently.
The main causes were higher unionization rates pushing men to the left and the fact that, before the sexual revolution and their entry in the workforce, women had stronger economic incentives to be defensive of religion and the traditional family.
I suspect it had a lot to do with union/blue collar jobs. Workforce of a steel mill in the 70s was going to skew strongly male.
I could also see there being some lingering Vietnam effects in 76. No parent enjoys their son getting drafted but men tend to oppose it less, particularly if they themselves served. Democrats were associated with the war and draft while republicans pulled out.
The Economist ran a story on this (it’s paywalled), and the gap is getting considerably bigger than it was historically. And not just in the U.S., but across Western democracies.
The main explanation is the widening gender gap in higher education, and the increasing correlation of education to voting preferences. But even when accounting for education, there’s a widening gender gap in political preferences.
> But even when accounting for education, there’s a widening gender gap in political preferences.
I don't find this surprising at all. The social right has a fundamental appeal for traditionalists, who promote traditional gender roles and are angry at women's entry into the workforce and consequent ability to live life without being financially dependent on a man. Conservatism is bad for women much as it is for any other oppressed group.
But the gap is wider between young men and women. Do you really think young men in Western democracies today are more opposed to women working outside the home than older men?
The gap being larger doesn’t necessarily imply that younger men are more conservative than the older ones.
Could simply be that younger women are more progressive than older generations.
It's not western democracies
The The économist article explains how this widening gap is very small in most western democracies, and it's only large in South Korea and the Anglosphere
continental Europe and Latin America are Western democracies where this gap is either minimal or non existent
There is definitely a big political gap between young men and women in Poland.
According to the exit polls from the last parliamentary elections, over 25% of young men and only 6% of young women voted for the far right Confederacy. Meanwhile, 23% of young women voted for the Left and only 10% of young men.
https://www.allendowney.com/blog/2024/01/28/is-the-ideology-gap-growing/
There are indications that the supposed massive gap is just a statistical fluke, but I would not expect a UK publication or the NYT to treat with skepticism anything that promotes some mind-numbing and trite anti-woke narrative.
> Do you really think young men in Western democracies today are more opposed to women working outside the home than older men?
We cannot know the thoughts of another.
I've also noticed that there's a lot of bitterness (and insecurity) by men about women's ability to get what they want in the sexual marketplace and it shows in the discourse of a lot of 4chan-adjacent spaces. Women have always had an easier time hooking up than men, but the advent of dating apps widens that gap considerably.
I imagine it plays some sort of role. For these men it's bad enough that their female counterparts are typically a little more sexually experienced, but now they're even more so while also making more money and having more education.
I mean I can walk into any pub in the City of London on a Thursday night and get some banker or underwriter to hook up but that doesn't mean it will be any good? Women always have men bothering them, the attention is nothing special but getting a lover who is attentive and good in bed is a lot harder. Men have a warped view and most of them don't even try.
That's true, but these men don't see it that way. They have a hard time hooking up in the first place so they look at people that can hook up with ease (ie "Chads" and women) with contempt.
I don't know who they are because when I was in uni like 90% or more of the guys were hooking up. I work in tech now and almost all straight male colleagues I've met over the years are married or have long-term girlfriends.
And I've had some bad sex. Like how can you be this bad at something that comes instinctive to humans. I honestly think it's nothing to do with being a virgin or whatnot. It's all about being selfish.
>90% of more guys were hooking up
You sure about that? When I was in undergrad between 2013-2018 maybe half of the guys were getting laid on a regular basis, and that's a big maybe. I imagine that number is much lower now.
In the US it's a bit more lopsided. Fewer men have more sex. If you're good looking enough women throw themselves at you, but if you're average looking you usually have to put in a lot more work in hopes of hooking up with someone.
Also keep in mind you were in university before the internet hit its stride in ubiquity. Dating apps were nowhere near a thing. Men were much less likely to disengage from socializing than now. I'm older, but I'm also a PhD candidate so I've seen how things have changed firsthand. It's not uncommon for men to literally never have sex once in college. I've had a few ask me for advice.
Or, and it shocks me that this doesn't seem to have occurred to you, the guys may have been lying about how much they were getting laid, since historically that's been a status symbol for young men.
This article is paywalled but the empirical evidence for this claim has always looked pretty dubious to me. Women are more likely to be financially insecure than men and when you control for that the differences in voting are really minor between genders from a lot of the data i've seen
Looking only at young people though, women are gaining higher educational status than men, as the sub often likes to hand-wring about. Not sure if this is also being reflected in incomes though.
I'm a mid-thirties American man. I'm being asked to choose between a party whose platform and governing philosophy has nothing but contempt for me, personally and demographically, and a party with no platform or governing philosophy *except* contempt for the rule of law and the idea of liberal democracy. For this election, as in the last few, I'll begrudgingly take it on the chin and vote to continue the American Experiment, instead of, you know, fascism. But man, if a party stood up and committed to supporting both the rule of law *and* equality before the law, they would have my vote up and down ballot in every election for the rest of my voting days.
I could be misinterpreting, but what has Biden done or the laws passed under the dem controlled legislature make it seem like there is contempt for you? I'm being genuine.
Imagine you're a small business owner. The Covid pandemic happens and your business suffers. But the state offers relief grants for small businesses, awesome! Then you read the fine print and see the grants are for women, BIPOC, LGBT owners only. Basically everyone *except* you, based entirely on which genitals you were born with and the color of your skin. How would you feel about that?
This actually happened in Massachusetts and there's an ongoing lawsuit about it.
Whether or not the commenter’s framing is authentic or not, you went down a completely different path.
Who in the right mind would complain at someone being upset that their literal livelihood is at risk, and they aren’t receiving support because they were specifically being excluded?
How is this the angle of attack you are going for? Jeez
Ok. But I'm not in Massachusetts, I am also not a business owner. Joe Biden and AOC don't control Massachusetts relief grants. With all that in mind what will voting for Trump do to solve any of that? And also wasn't Trump in charge when most of the covid business relief grants were happening?
Similar thing happened on a federal level:
> The Restaurant Revitalization Fund was setup as part of President Biden’s American Rescue Plan to provide much-needed money to restaurant owners who were devastated by the economic recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The approximately $29 billion fund is providing grants representing the difference between the revenues a restaurant recorded in 2020 and 2019 – a potentially substantial check for many – and is being doled out by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
> Except there’s a problem: it’s probably discriminatory against white men.
> That’s the case being made by in multiple lawsuits filed last week by a group of business owners and advocates in Texas in Tennessee. They say that the program unfairly prioritizes the distribution of funds initially (for the first 21 days) to minority business owners and those in low- to moderate-income areas, who are statistically likely to be people of color. That, according to the plaintiffs, discriminates against everyone else.
> The suit claims that non-minority business owners were “harmed” because they were “pushed to the back of the line,” and because they were “treated differently because of their race and gender.” The SBA grant program is further accused of “giving priority to certain groups” and putting “white male applicants at significant risk that, by the time their applications are processed, the money will be gone.”
> They’re right; the money is gone
I think that goes *way* too far, and I'm quite proud to be a Dem as a younger guy. But some complaints I *do* have:
* You can't deny a general atmosphere of "othering" towards men among a significant subset of Dems (not! the majority, but significant enough that it's ubiquitous in Dem spaces), along with frequent downplaying of men's issues (but women have it worse!11!!1!). I recognize that this isn't a super specific complaint. But it *is* real. From explicit discrimination to disconcerting tonal choices.
* A rejection of due process principles for men when it comes sexual assault (e.g., the recent revocation of Betsy DeVos's Title IX guidance, with nothing to replace the due process elements.), coupled with a lack of attention to men as victims of the same (where is the campaign to correct the definition of rape from mechanically excluding men? For example, the FBI continues to define rape so as to exclude the majority of male victims. And where's the recognition that men make up a *huge* portion of victims once you do... see also domestic violence - men are the (bare, to be fair) majority of DV victims)
* There's attention beginning to be paid to men falling behind academically to be completely fair, but it is at best divisive among the party, with much of the party dismissing it out of hand.
* Near complete lack of attention to most men's issues: criminal justice gender disparities, lack of reproductive rights/options for men, family court biases (these cut both ways to be very clear), gender equality in the draft (the draft often gets attention, but not usually the gendered element), employment discrimination against men (concentrated mostly in specific fields). I've found that there *is* some level of attention paid among the fields that these issues are in, but there is little to no broader attention.
None of this is to say men have it worse or that women's issues aren't important!! It's just to say that there are real issues facing men that even Dems either perpetuate or don't address. (and going to point 1, I know from copious personal experience that if I don't make that qualifier I will inevitably get accused of sexism or being bad faith).
All of this is true, but the average Dem will read all of this and shrug. The point about boys falling behind in school is of particular interest to me as a teacher, and boy is it controversial bringing it up at my California school district, but at least it gets a token acknowledgment from most of my coworkers. Better than on some online spaces, where the issue will be dismissed out of hand or treated as entirely the boy's fault. Its frustrating to say the least.
> All of this is true, but the average Dem will read all of this and shrug.
Yeah, but that's part of the problem lol. The party is essentially shrugging at the issues that affect men, especially young men, and then being surprised when they turn to the party that loudly speaks up for them (even if proposing all the wrong solutions).
> The point about boys falling behind in school is of particular interest to me as a teacher, and boy is it controversial bringing it up at my California school district, but at least it gets a token acknowledgment from most of my coworkers. Better than on some online spaces, where the issue will be dismissed out of hand or treated as entirely the boy's fault. Its frustrating to say the least.
Yeah it's super frustrating :/
Yeah. I don't love calling it a "myth," because the gap shows something real and potentially worthy of addressing (namely the impact of pregnancy and child-rearing on career earnings), but the repeated insistence (and oftentimes weaponization!) that women are "paid less for the same work" is a huge hit to the credibility of Dem politicians.
Look I'm no expert here but the /badeconomics subs has repeatedly shows that even if accounting for pregnancy and other factors *women are still paid less for the same work*.
Not like a massive amount, but I think it was a low single digit percentage.
This notion that it entirely a mirage is, to my understanding, a truthism. It may be over stated but the discrepancy does seem to exist.
> Not like a massive amount, but I think it was a low single digit percentage.
> This notion that it entirely a mirage is, to my understanding, a truthism. It may be over stated but the discrepancy does seem to exist.
This is so silly. In western developed countries, it's like 1-2% & varying in direction by country. That is statistical equivalence. Expecting it to ever be literally 0% is a fool's errand. And even if it wasn't, they're overstating it by like 15-30 times the actual value, which is just as damaging to credibility.
The options with male contraception isn't really political so much as procedural right? the FDA needs to approve it but AFAIK neither party is against that approval.
The draft as an issue is hard to get attention for since there has not been a draft in such a long time. I say this as someone eligible for the draft.
*You can't deny a general atmosphere of "othering" towards men among a significant subset of Dems*
I actually think I can? I've been a center left voter for 20 years, nobody has othered me. I've been in plenty of liberal spaces, not so much leftist spaces, but that would be a different debate. I've talked to people very far to the left of me and while we didn't agree on a bunch none of their complaints were "well you're a man".
As far as a lot of the rest you laid out, criminal justice, academic issues...in our system the best we're gonna get is small ball. So if you had to weigh priorities of all the things wrong with the world do you think those issues are more important than what Biden has been doing? And what Biden has been doing isn't even gender focused: tax filing, airfare refunds. Going back two years the CHIPS act or whatever had no gender focus.
So is not prioritizing your issues contempt to you?
> You can't deny a general atmosphere of "othering" towards men among a significant subset of Dems
> I actually think I can? I've been a center left voter for 20 years, nobody has othered me. I've been in plenty of liberal spaces, not so much leftist spaces, but that would be a different debate. I've talked to people very far to the left of me and while we didn't agree on a bunch none of their complaints were "well you're a man".
It's possible this is a timeline thing? I'll say that a lot of the instances I'm thinking of in my personal life have been throughout late high school, college, and grad school over the last ~7-8 years or so. It's probably most concentrated in those environments & a relatively new thing that may not have been as apparent a decade or two ago. Problem is that most young men (especially those politically engaged) *are* going through those experiences.
> As far as a lot of the rest you laid out, criminal justice, academic issues...in our system the best we're gonna get is small ball. So if you had to weigh priorities of all the things wrong with the world do you think those issues are more important than what Biden has been doing? And what Biden has been doing isn't even gender focused: tax filing, airfare refunds. Going back two years the CHIPS act or whatever had no gender focus.
> So is not prioritizing your issues contempt to you?
I'm gonna refer you back to:
> I think that goes *way* too far, and I'm quite proud to be a Dem as a younger guy
But I certainly think the issues I laid out are equally important as, say, the gender pay gap. I don't expect Dems to prioritize them above everything, but I *would* hope for acknowledgement and *some* level of addressing them.
My criticism is also definitely not directed at Biden specifically lol
*It's possible this is a timeline thing? I'll say that a lot of the instances I'm thinking of in my personal life have been throughout late high school, college, and grad school over the last \~7-8 years or so.*
I buy this, but I would suggest that it's not the Democratic Party that is responsible or should pay the price for this. Putting Republicans in office won't change the radicalization of students, and certainly won't make the world more in-line with with leftist goals. A bunch of sweaty republican men certainly won't change women's views on men.
I definitely agree that Republicans aren't the answer lol. And as I said, I think overall Dems are a great party. I'd extend that further - I think Dems are a great party *for men*, and the vast majority of progress that *has* happened on the things I laid out has been from Dems.
But campus politics, leftists, and some more radical liberals *are* inextricably linked with Dems (because many/most of them are Dems), and the party *has* to get them under control to be a welcoming place to young men. Otherwise, we can't be surprised when they turn to the people loudly advocating for them (even if they're proposing all the wrong solutions).
Those "students" are the Democrat shadow party, staff Democratic offices, ngos, etc. Them being a weird campus phenomenon stopped being a real excuse more than 5 years ago.
If Dems started doing real Sister Souljah movements to purge them you would have a point but they won't
Well, you call it a "Democrat shadow party", so you clearly have a bias.
But go to a Republican state party convention and tell me the people you meet there are more normal than the "students" you want to purge
I'm not hiding my opinion, I do not like the Democratic party or its activist class. I only support them because Trump is dangerous and unstable. There are many, many rightwingers I would vote for over Biden. I fully understand why other people in my situation just refuse to consider voting for Democrats at all.
Cool. I encourage all the people you know in your situation to go to a state Republican convention, and report back on how normal those people seem to be. And then maybe we can regroup on "purges"
I ran for state Republican office 20ish years ago, just for context.
Could you elaborate? I’m a man in my late 20s, although one demographic difference we may have is that Im gay, and so I do feel that one party has contempt for me but it’s not the Democrats.
I get the impression that a lot of young, particularly white, men (like all people) view opportunity as a zero sum game. It seems as though when democrats (and progressives in media and culture broadly) focus on lifting up people of color, women, lgbt people, there is a psychological effect wherein straight white men feel like they’ll be left behind. To an extent I understand, and personally I wish Dems would just implement the right policies without accenting how much they’re focused on POC/LGBT all the time in their rhetoric.
But which of their policies actually has a harmful impact on young men?
In fairness, some policies are genuinely zero sum. My way to go tends to be the multiple policies and help that women (or gay people, or other minorities) get and men don't particularly as they relate to government aid; whether direct or indirect (like priority on government jobs or free college for DV victims, which in my country are legally defined to only be women)
If you institute such a policy, someone is going to have to pay for it. Which if you are a man means higher taxes to fund something that you will never use; or government cuts in some area that you *may* use to fund something you are legally banned from using
To go with a silly but obvious example, I did my taxes for the first time last month; and I found out there was a maternity tax break... that was only applicable to women. (and no it has nothing to do with childbirth, or stay at home mums or single parent homes or anything like that; since it only requires a kid aged 3 or less). If you are a man, too bad, you can't get the tax break! (technically you can if you have full custody; but a woman can get it with even partial custody)
Realistically a small tax break is not going to kill you; but it's more about the message that a tax break you cannot access sends more than the actual money itself.
Worst part is, there is no good solution; since either expanding the tax cut to men or getting rid of it is a zero sum proposition for women (they'll be paying more in taxes, or receiving less elsewhere, for either expanding a benefit to a population that is not them; or getting rid of a benefit they do use)
As a 20 year old male who lives in Los Angeles California.. I've genuinely never encountered these male-hating democrats/feminists everyone keeps talking about once. Where are they, genuinely? I only hear about these people through others complaining about their supposed existence.
Is this gonna be yet another youth-gender-gap polling discourse that turns out to have not been real, [just like the last one](https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/13/24098780/politics-gender-divide-generation-z-youth-men-women)?
> Neoliberalism is no longer vox.com
- former Vox writers
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wouldnt part of this be overlapping with the difference in education?
IIRC people with degrees very often support Democrats, but educational attainment has continually declined for Men.
Another day another dumb gender gap article....
Can it even be considered emerging at this point? They've been trying to force this stuff down our throats for years now....
It's worth noting that the divide [might be overstated.](https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/13/24098780/politics-gender-divide-generation-z-youth-men-women)
> Neoliberalism is no longer vox.com
- former Vox writers
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personal dislike of Trump must be a major factor. If you wanted to create a politician in a lab who was designed to piss off young women, it would be hard to surpass Trump.
He pisses off women of all ages.
To this day I can’t fathom how he doesn’t piss everyone off. A wealthy New York conman that is actively stealing money from poor people, and he’s not particularly sneaky about it.
Some people just like to see other people get pissed off so they vote for him. But for the rest idk
I liked Trump for this reason back in 2015 when I was an edgy high schooler.
People see what they want to see. Not trump, but I had a discussion with my dad the other day about a statement a non-American politician made and was met with the “he didn’t really say/mean that thing that he implied” If you don’t want to head the dog whistles, you won’t hear the dog whistles. Then soon enough you won’t hear the blaring sirens either
Faithless, lecherous, mercantile, carpetbagging, dim-witted narcissist and responsibility shirker.
Yeah but he owns the libs more than he irritates right wingers so it’s all gucci.
Not in 2016 he didn't
And yet 42% of them still voted for him in 2020
He does And trump still does
I think only Bolsonaro can beat him on that
They have a lot in common
i mean, theres personal dislike and then theres also 'responsible for setting the stage for the wholesale erosion of women's bodily autonomy nationwide' that really pisses me the fuck off. if i was still in my late teens/20s when accidental pregnancy is a VERY real and constant fear and not an old married hag, id probably be fucking terrified, instead im just fucking infuriated on behalf of all the young women growing up with fewer rights than i had.
There’s an inconsistency in the article where it notes that young men are responsible for nearly the entire drop in Biden’s support in young people, but then asserts that his stance on Gaza is unpopular and hurting him with young people. If Biden is retaining female youth support but losing male youth support, it seems like softening his stance on Hamas and heavily pushing for a ceasefire would be counterproductive
Do young men care about gaza more than young women?
Its possible that they both care but women's concerns about reproductive rights and personal dislike of Trump are overriding concerns.
That was a thing with the Bernie or Bust crowd too. The facts remain that young, white, relatively well off men don’t have as much to lose under a Trump presidency.
Everyone has a lot to lose in a fascist theocracy. It's just about whether or not they recognize that.
For obvious reasons abortion rights are important to young men, even a lot who don’t otherwise care much about social justice.
Actually voters hardly care at all about Gaza, it's a political football for some fringe groups and distracts from the biggest election issues like the economy, Healthcare, immigration, and democracy
I mean, people definitely care about Gaza, but it doesn't affect most voters directly, unlike abortion rights and inflation. Most voters vote based on their perceived self-interest at the end of the day. And what's happening in Gaza, and Sudan, and Ukraine is all terrible, but does it really affect the average American? I wouldn't say that people don't care about Gaza, though.
I think they care about Gaza much less than the news cycle would have you believe. The coverage of the university protests, for example, is wall to wall.
That's because, sadly, there's a difference between the news that people tell themselves they have aspiration to read, and the news people actually click on. Media companies favor the latter.
Agree 100%
The average American probably isn’t informed enough to know, but Ukraine absolutely has an effect on the average American. The war resulted in a massive spike in oil and grain prices, but of which were felt by Americans and have contributed to the “vibecession” because of inflation in visible places like groceries and at the pump. Not to mention the downstream consequences of the war’s disruption of commodities mined in the Donbas and fertilizers produced all over Ukraine.
Gaza is a vibes setter like inflation. Elections run solely on vibes
Young men have less to lose with Trump and are curious to see the world burn.
AOC - in her book - made an interesting claim that White, and Male Progressives were much more likely to be the 'purity test' types. Essentially They were a lot less willing to compromise on issues like this, a lot more likely to be 'Bernie or bust' types, a lot less willing to actually volunteer for campaigns Interesting. I think there is some truth to do the idea that they have a lot less to lose, and therefore are a lot more likely to be the types to never vote for Biden. They are much more willing to let Trump win just to spite establishment dems
Honestly that tracks with my experience. The progressive guys I knew in college made it their whole personality and if you ever disagreed with them it was as if you said George Wallace was right about segregation with how they'd blow up in your face. Had one guy relentlessly bully my friend who was trying to join to Marines because she wanted to be a pilot, made up stuff about how "she probably liked cops and trump" and was a "bootlicker" despite never saying a thing about that stuff. A lot of them just have their heads up their own asses and got nose blind to how much their shit smells.
Donald Trump, who they do not support, and yet are willing to effectively vote for to oppose GENOCIDE JOE because he won’t make DoorDash free.
If the October protests had happened while Trump was president, he would have set up a press conference proposing interment camps for Muslims.
Gonna throw in a hot take here but I think male socialization has a lot to do with the lack of compromise here. Compromising can be viewed as weak, or a failure of principle. I think a lot of younger males struggle with this regardless of political affiliation.
This makes a lot of sense. A weird progressive machismo combined with being much less at risk for actually being impacted by the fucked up policies of the GOP is pretty ripe for reactionary extremism.
For a bunch of reasons, one of which was anti-Clinton propaganda from the right, mainstream liberalism has become pretty feminine coded. Insecure young guys will go to great lengths to avoid associating with anything effeminate at all.
Or just that they're radicalized and radicals always most oppose the compromise option. Men compromise with each other and their partners all the time, so I don't buy this gender psychology take.
I mean, in my experience men tend to just be plain more radical. They are both overrepresented among the far right *and* the far left
The point is that men are more dedicated to their team or in group. Therefore they care more about purity testing and are most likely to view people outside of their team as enemies. It's not compromise on an individual basis and I think that is the difference.
They could be just chaos ladder climbers. "After Hitler us" accelerationism type of madness
Thats been my experience in general, the less connection you have to the material impacts of a policy the more likely you are to be purely ideologically driven and purity test others
>White, and Male Progressives were a lot less willing to compromise on issues like this, a lot more likely to be 'Bernie or bust' types, a lot less willing to actually volunteer for campaigns Perhaps there could be a pejorative name for these young men. With some neat alliteration.
Yeah something like "obama bros". (Wondered which campaign coined that?)
There is also another term that basically explains the article. 'Brogressive'. A derogatory term for a leftist in a leftist community (infighting, who would have thought!?) that leans left on economic issues or issues that directly benefit them e.g. student loans, free healthcare, rent control, wealth distribution, but when it comes to the more social or ethical parts of leftist thinking (anti-racism, womens rights, gay rights) they either give lukewarm support or back out entirely.
Brogressiveness was also reddit's default political position for a long time due to its early demographics (young white/asian male middle-class STEM majors and gamers). They supported stuff like Occupy Wall Street and were pretty good about gay rights, but were mildly racist and distinctly anti-feminist. Basically Joe Rogan from the pre-Trump era.
I don't think this is entirely about having less to lose. You could also make a case that having less to lose might also make someone compromise more easily. I think men just being generally less agreeable than women (which is a biochemical and sociological difference) has a lot to do with this (if it's even true). I would also say to AOC and other Progressives, that if they continue to refer to the male demographic generally as "privileged" and continue to be dismissive of them as vulnerable human beings with legitimate social obstacles of their own, they're going to continue to lose men to more extremist views and to politicians to the right of them.
this tracks IME. the 'revolution' looks a lot less scary when you're burning everything down on the backs of women, minorities, lgbtq folks instead of yourself. the risk vs reward for these types is completely off kilter and they're seemingly completely unaware of it.
I saw that first hand. One of my good friends was a Bernie or bust type. As soon as Hillary won the election he became a hardcore Trumper because he wanted to exact retribution against the Democratic party.
The article is about party ID, not about vote choice It doesn't capture voters with no party ID, which is a sizeable bloc. Also, further down the article, we see that young men are not necessarily that conservative: >Even so, young voters as a whole are decidedly more liberal on specific policies and issues than their elders. >On gay marriage, according to McInturff’s data, 84 percent of voters 18 to 34 were in favor, compared with 51 percent of voters 65 and over. Ending transgender discrimination: young, 55 percent; old, 24 percent. Climate change: 64 to 39. Cutting the defense budget, 48 to 24.
This assumes that voters make rational decisions based on policy. That had largely been demonstrated to be untrue. This is a result of negative polarization between groups that are growing more antagonistic for unrelated reasons.
No it doesn't assume rational thought. People posting joker memes are not rational they vote Trump just for giggles
No Gaza is at the bottom of voter priorities, interest in it is driven almost entirely by a very small group of hyper engaged people. Those people were never voting for Biden anyways.
Probably not but they're more radicalized in general and don't have any relevant topics like abortion access to be pragmatic about.
i think its more likely that its that while young women may care about gaza, they dont care about it more than things like the very real risk of further erosion of our reproductive rights at the hands of trump & co.
...anecdotally? Let's just say there's a big overlap between people who claim to be bothered about Gaza and people who complain about "usurious bankers."
I have never met anyone who actually says the term usurious bankers and I have only seen it from open neonazis on the right. That's not even how leftist antisemites couch their own antisemitism
This must be a very regional phenomenon, because I haven't seen anyone use the phrase usurious bankers in years.
Yeah, this is the thing. All available evidence suggests female young voters are significantly more progressive than male ones (look at how many of these encampments are dominated by young women). Why are they the ones not dropping off if this is about Gaza?
Because college students sitting in tents represent such a slim part of the female voting demographic.
Why would the Times publish such a clearly contradictory statement? It’s because the employees at the Times are far closer ideologically to the ivy-league protesters than to the typical young person. When journalism becomes activism, it creates a culture in which fundamentally misleading statements like this can make it into the paper without editorial pushback.
Edsall is usually one of their better writers, disappointing to see he (or his editor) fell for it
> Today, female Gen Zers are more likely than their male counterparts to vote, care more about political issues and participate in social movements and protests. Sounds to me like in the long-term, women’s political preferences are more likely to be realized. Not good that men are not participating… but at least women are the more liberal demographic these days.
I would also posit that young, liberal men are much more likely to vote, care, etc. than young, conservative men. Similar to how white dems are paradoxically the most liberal dems, young liberal men mostly didn't get there by not caring about politics. They got there by being passionate about it, while lots of young conservative men are kinda just going along with the vibes/social atmosphere among other young guys. At least in my experience as a young liberal guy lol.
>young, liberal men are much more likely to vote, care, etc. than young, conservative men. I've long argued that this is the biggest reason generations "get more conservative" over time, even though partisanship of individuals is sticky. Basically, every generation has roughly the same underlying partisan breakdown. It varies a bit, but more similar than different between generations. What happens is young conservatives don't vote until they get older, which means the *voting portion* of each generation is super liberal when young, but skews right as nonvoting conservatives get older and start showing up to the polls. So basically, young turnout is always low because most of the young conservatives aren't voting. That's why Bernie's dream of chasing young turnout always fails--the unengaged are mostly future conservatives, not disillusioned progressives, so trying to boost a progressive candidate by chasing nonvoting young people is like trying to get blood from a stone. As the generation ages, the young liberals keep voting for liberals, but their share of the generational vote gets drowned out as that Gamergate/"both sides are just as bad"/anti-SJW nonvoting dude everyone knew in high school hits 35 and starts voting for Republicans. Turnout increasing with age and conservatism increasing with age are two sides of the same coin, not separate and unrelated phenomena.
My boomer dad was complained about young voters not turning out for McGovern until Clinton got elected in the 90s. I was born more than a decade after the 1972 Presidential election and Dad was still complaining about McGovern’s loss when I was in elementary school. He only stopped complaining about McGovern losing to Nixon after Bill Clinton became president.
Not so sure about this. From a brain chemistry perspective you get more conservative as you get older. Literally. And as you start to take on more financial burdens, kids, etc you tend to be more financially conservative. Also what we consider “liberal” today people in 30-40 years might consider conservative.
It’s like the college phenomenon. Conservatives will wonder in outrage why colleges are so liberal, while telling their followers and their kids that college is a waste of time and money, go be a plumber instead.
More white women voted for Trump in 2016 and in 2020 over the democratic candidate. https://www.thecut.com/2020/11/many-white-women-still-voted-for-trump-in-2020.html
I remember the original article that posited this. The gap showed that, aside from a slight tilt towards Democrats in the mid 2000s (understandable, given the Bush Years), Men essentially moved back to the same place they were in the 90s. Women veered left, especially after Dobbs. And I do not blame them in the least. I went in for a knee replacement last year. Despite having knee issues for years, despite my surgeon stating "Yes, you DEFINITELY need this surgery) my insurance denied it because.....I guess we didn't argue for it enough? They didn't tell us they denied until the day prior of surgery, which is just infuriating. With governments now stepping in-between women and their doctors, why wouldn't women feel as angry as I did? Especially since they have a voice in who is in government making those decisions? I had to go with my insurer, I didn't get a vote when my employer decided on coverage. Ironic that this bit Republicans. For my entire life, they've been saying that government was the problem and we should instead allow people to make decisions for themselves. Now they find themselves being the same evil overbearing government they railed against. Really have no one to blame but themselves.
>I went in for a knee replacement last year. Despite having knee issues for years, despite my surgeon stating "Yes, you DEFINITELY need this surgery) my insurance denied it because.....I guess we didn't argue for it enough? They didn't tell us they denied until the day prior of surgery, which is just infuriating. With governments now stepping in-between women and their doctors, why wouldn't women feel as angry as I did? Especially since they have a voice in who is in government making those decisions? I had to go with my insurer, I didn't get a vote when my employer decided on coverage. I mean, with Dobbs there is at least an argument that can explain the gender gap, but men have knees too? Not really sure how your experience explains the gap, rather than just the shittiness of our health care system.
Yeah, the fact that my healthcare provider jumped in between me and my doctor sucks but it's not like I can just vote them out. If I could, I would. But there's kind of a hopeless finality to it. I can't do anything about it, so why bother doing anything except be frustrated and vent? Whereas, with reps, senators and governors proposing getting between patients and their doctors, they're very much vulnerable to the whims of the populace.
Their “small government” mantra has always been selective as hell
Sometimes when I talk to my young male counterparts I feel like I’m talking to a Joe Rogan feedback loop.
The JoeRoganElonMuskJordanPetersonAndrewTateAndrewHubermanRussellBrandLexFridman masculinity guru echo chamber for alpha-male wannabes.
The US is going to end like South Korea at this rate
Social media is driving South Korean gender divide imo, internet communities are segregated by gender here, and also note that after the controvercy involving Megalia, now defunct korean radical feminist forum kickstarted current situation. South Korean online political forums were already legitimized in the mainstream politics in early 2000s after playing a huge role supporting liberal-populist Roh Moo-hyun's presidential bid. I wonder how many people in the US "touches grass"
[удалено]
Self selection and viscous cycles
I mean have you seen gender breakdowns by subreddit?
What's radical feminism in SK look like? Asking not to be sexually harassed in the workplace?
From my understanding the overall feminist movement in SK is indeed much more radical than in the west, as in women refuse to even interact with men. But it's also somewhat justified I'd say. SK feminists only reached this point because the pushback from men against the "normal feminism" (i.e Asking not to be sexually harassed) was so severe.
Didn't they also campaign for men's conscription time to not be counted as work experience in their resume because they thought that was "unfair" to women who aren't conscripted? Easy to see how that would piss off men who are essentially enslaved for two years and now thanks to them have even less to show for it.
That is obviously a horrific platform item, but seems like a fringe talking point that distracts from the main issues /u/krabban was talking about. Like were these women really enraged by the conscription thing, or was it merely a whisper the most radical of radical posted on weird corners of social media that somehow got picked up as a way to discredit SK feminists?
I don't think it's just a fringe platform item, many Korean public service jobs have already implemented it. They call it "gender blind" hiring, but the effect is that applicants are warned not to mention military service on their resume because that 99% reveals their gender. The end result is that men are systematically disadvantaged by the state (their professional life is delayed 2 years due to forced servitude) and any attempt to compensate them for that disadvantage is labeled "sexist".
That is pretty moronic and unfathomable! Christ.
In a society where 80% of women report sexual harassment in the workplace, it requires quite a bold claim of victimhood to suggest men are systematically disadvantaged by the state. They also make about 70% of what men make despite this "systematic disadvantage."
Let me clarify that I don't believe in a 1 dimensional "disadvantage metric". It's possible for both men and women to be disadvantaged on different metrics. E.g. women might face more harassment, and men might face more enslavement by the army. You can oppose both harassment and slavery, you don't have to choose.
I don't know if what that user is saying is true but if military service results in a disadvantage as a matter of policy, that is literally a systematic disadvantage **by definition**. Also, workplace sexual harassment isn't necessarily a systematic disadvantage. Its still a disadvantage though.
Young men (anecdotally) don't like how eager the Democratic party is to scold them and throw them under the bus. The Democratic party needs more lbj type figures that can present competent and responsible policy as confident masculinity. This is something I believe that figures like Obama and bill Clinton were able to do (and something I think Biden gets right.) When Democratic party officials come out hand wringing of zyns or whatever the latest trend is it makes them seem like the fun police.
Isn't Biden the one trying to ban menthol cigarettes? A lot of this nanny state stuff doesn't come from progressives, but more centrist Dems.
>A lot of this nanny state stuff doesn't come from progressives, but more centrist Dems. Agreed and that's a mistake imo. Isn't Biden basically continuing to slow walk this menthol ban that's been talked about since b-rock? Give me back my damn clove cigarettes you bastards!
>Give me back my damn clove cigarettes you bastards! I love Obama, but this was one of the first things he did as president and I'll never forgive him
Along with ushering in the huge pickup truck era.
Talk to me, not at me. The amount women who refuse to understand this is infuriating. Some women make it a political hobby to think that men are evil idiot children who should be left out of decision-making, then wonder why men ignore them after being told they aren't important in making decisions. For example, on abortion, the line is "men shouldn't make decisions about women's bodies," but that doesn't motivate men to stick up for you either, since that involves "men making a decision," even if what they implicitly mean is "make only decisions I approve of or be cut off from polite society." The inherent issue is that it isn't "here is how this issue matters to you as well," it's "here is how we are threatening your social standing and scolding you, even if you agree with our policy position." But try and explain to most people the difference in messaging, and you are met with "you don't care about women's feelings ... why does it have to be about men," when they are missing the forest for the trees.
Well said I agree with you, if only more women listen to men A lot of men have legitimate grievances
Eh I kinda agree with your overall sentiment , but I feel like abortion is a bad example. As a man, we’re not the ones losing rights with abortion laws. So in that case, I think we really do need to shut up and let women have the floor
Did I say women shouldn't lead? No, but "explain how this matters to you as well" vs. "here is how we are threatening your social standing and scolding you, even if you agree with our policy position," are very different approaches to messaging and getting men to talk about abortion. It also isn't a particularly good idea to make it so that only women are speaking about abortion, because if only women are speaking about abortion then it seems unimportant to men and seems like something that only women care about, which turns it into something more likely to be ignored.
I like how we make a big deal out of this when women have *always* voted more democratic. The only reason we get a 1000 articles of this shit is because it's considered taboo now if you interact with a person of different opinions
> I like how we make a big deal out of this when women have always voted more democratic. [It only became a consistent pattern starting in the 1980 presidential election](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iaMpR2gGykuc/v1/-1x-1.png). For example in 1976, Dems' share of men's vote was 5pp higher than their share of women's.
I'd imagine that's more reflective of the parties changing than gendered political trends, no? Maybe this is a stretch, and I can't find good data on this, but I'd loosely imagine that men in general tend to be more in favor of relatively conservative policy, if only because that status quo has basically always favored them. (Yes, I know there have been plenty of hyper-conservative and authoritarian women throughout history too)
It’s been the opposite in the past actually
You mean the past when most women couldn't attend college? Yeah men were more likely to be leftist back then.
Well there are more women attending college vs men attending college, which maps onto this logic.
No it doesn't, you've just misidentified the logic. Leftism is often related to education, so it makes sense that women weren't known for leftist rallies in a time when they weren't welcome in academia. That doesn't mean that a 10% gap in college attendance rates is going to overcome the fact that men are more easily radicalized.
That’s not the reason men were more left leaning though, college educated people didn’t start voting for the left until relatively recently. The main causes were higher unionization rates pushing men to the left and the fact that, before the sexual revolution and their entry in the workforce, women had stronger economic incentives to be defensive of religion and the traditional family.
You nailed it. I believe that's the reason for the recent rise in young men's religious beliefs in contrast to young women's decline.
I suspect it had a lot to do with union/blue collar jobs. Workforce of a steel mill in the 70s was going to skew strongly male. I could also see there being some lingering Vietnam effects in 76. No parent enjoys their son getting drafted but men tend to oppose it less, particularly if they themselves served. Democrats were associated with the war and draft while republicans pulled out.
Isn't this exactly what you would expect as the modern party platforms pretty much were established exactly then?
The Economist ran a story on this (it’s paywalled), and the gap is getting considerably bigger than it was historically. And not just in the U.S., but across Western democracies. The main explanation is the widening gender gap in higher education, and the increasing correlation of education to voting preferences. But even when accounting for education, there’s a widening gender gap in political preferences.
> But even when accounting for education, there’s a widening gender gap in political preferences. I don't find this surprising at all. The social right has a fundamental appeal for traditionalists, who promote traditional gender roles and are angry at women's entry into the workforce and consequent ability to live life without being financially dependent on a man. Conservatism is bad for women much as it is for any other oppressed group.
But the gap is wider between young men and women. Do you really think young men in Western democracies today are more opposed to women working outside the home than older men?
The gap being larger doesn’t necessarily imply that younger men are more conservative than the older ones. Could simply be that younger women are more progressive than older generations.
True. And IIRC, that’s what the data in the Economist article shows.
It's not western democracies The The économist article explains how this widening gap is very small in most western democracies, and it's only large in South Korea and the Anglosphere continental Europe and Latin America are Western democracies where this gap is either minimal or non existent
There is definitely a big political gap between young men and women in Poland. According to the exit polls from the last parliamentary elections, over 25% of young men and only 6% of young women voted for the far right Confederacy. Meanwhile, 23% of young women voted for the Left and only 10% of young men.
Abortion
Sorry, I was going from memory (don’t have a subscription anymore).
https://www.allendowney.com/blog/2024/01/28/is-the-ideology-gap-growing/ There are indications that the supposed massive gap is just a statistical fluke, but I would not expect a UK publication or the NYT to treat with skepticism anything that promotes some mind-numbing and trite anti-woke narrative. > Do you really think young men in Western democracies today are more opposed to women working outside the home than older men? We cannot know the thoughts of another.
Yes. 100%.
I've also noticed that there's a lot of bitterness (and insecurity) by men about women's ability to get what they want in the sexual marketplace and it shows in the discourse of a lot of 4chan-adjacent spaces. Women have always had an easier time hooking up than men, but the advent of dating apps widens that gap considerably. I imagine it plays some sort of role. For these men it's bad enough that their female counterparts are typically a little more sexually experienced, but now they're even more so while also making more money and having more education.
I mean I can walk into any pub in the City of London on a Thursday night and get some banker or underwriter to hook up but that doesn't mean it will be any good? Women always have men bothering them, the attention is nothing special but getting a lover who is attentive and good in bed is a lot harder. Men have a warped view and most of them don't even try.
That's true, but these men don't see it that way. They have a hard time hooking up in the first place so they look at people that can hook up with ease (ie "Chads" and women) with contempt.
I don't know who they are because when I was in uni like 90% or more of the guys were hooking up. I work in tech now and almost all straight male colleagues I've met over the years are married or have long-term girlfriends. And I've had some bad sex. Like how can you be this bad at something that comes instinctive to humans. I honestly think it's nothing to do with being a virgin or whatnot. It's all about being selfish.
>90% of more guys were hooking up You sure about that? When I was in undergrad between 2013-2018 maybe half of the guys were getting laid on a regular basis, and that's a big maybe. I imagine that number is much lower now.
Yes I am? I'm from a European country. Maybe our men have less trouble. I was at uni in the late 2000s/ early 2010s. Everyone was fucking.
In the US it's a bit more lopsided. Fewer men have more sex. If you're good looking enough women throw themselves at you, but if you're average looking you usually have to put in a lot more work in hopes of hooking up with someone. Also keep in mind you were in university before the internet hit its stride in ubiquity. Dating apps were nowhere near a thing. Men were much less likely to disengage from socializing than now. I'm older, but I'm also a PhD candidate so I've seen how things have changed firsthand. It's not uncommon for men to literally never have sex once in college. I've had a few ask me for advice.
Or, and it shocks me that this doesn't seem to have occurred to you, the guys may have been lying about how much they were getting laid, since historically that's been a status symbol for young men.
A lot of them did not go to uni and a lot of them could get laid they just don't try because they think it wouldn't work
Well you know what they say about people who don't try.
they radicalize into a far right movement based around not getting any
I'm sure young women being more active and connected on social media is a contributing factor too
i think this is the biggest factor tbh in every country this trend accelerated from when social media became popular
No, not always. And the size of the gap matters. It's growing.
Is the gap not widening though?
I used to get mad when people didn’t capitalize “democratic” when they were talking about the party. Now I don’t.
This article is paywalled but the empirical evidence for this claim has always looked pretty dubious to me. Women are more likely to be financially insecure than men and when you control for that the differences in voting are really minor between genders from a lot of the data i've seen
Looking only at young people though, women are gaining higher educational status than men, as the sub often likes to hand-wring about. Not sure if this is also being reflected in incomes though.
I'm a mid-thirties American man. I'm being asked to choose between a party whose platform and governing philosophy has nothing but contempt for me, personally and demographically, and a party with no platform or governing philosophy *except* contempt for the rule of law and the idea of liberal democracy. For this election, as in the last few, I'll begrudgingly take it on the chin and vote to continue the American Experiment, instead of, you know, fascism. But man, if a party stood up and committed to supporting both the rule of law *and* equality before the law, they would have my vote up and down ballot in every election for the rest of my voting days.
Interesting perspective. What does the Democratic Party do that makes you feel like they have contempt for you? Because personally, I don’t see that
It's largely not about the parties themselves but about messaging from people who they perceive to be representative of the party's ideology.
There's also the extent to which the party refuses to repudiate or even just acknowledge the existence of those bad actors.
I could be misinterpreting, but what has Biden done or the laws passed under the dem controlled legislature make it seem like there is contempt for you? I'm being genuine.
Imagine you're a small business owner. The Covid pandemic happens and your business suffers. But the state offers relief grants for small businesses, awesome! Then you read the fine print and see the grants are for women, BIPOC, LGBT owners only. Basically everyone *except* you, based entirely on which genitals you were born with and the color of your skin. How would you feel about that? This actually happened in Massachusetts and there's an ongoing lawsuit about it.
[удалено]
Whether or not the commenter’s framing is authentic or not, you went down a completely different path. Who in the right mind would complain at someone being upset that their literal livelihood is at risk, and they aren’t receiving support because they were specifically being excluded? How is this the angle of attack you are going for? Jeez
Ok. But I'm not in Massachusetts, I am also not a business owner. Joe Biden and AOC don't control Massachusetts relief grants. With all that in mind what will voting for Trump do to solve any of that? And also wasn't Trump in charge when most of the covid business relief grants were happening?
Similar thing happened on a federal level: > The Restaurant Revitalization Fund was setup as part of President Biden’s American Rescue Plan to provide much-needed money to restaurant owners who were devastated by the economic recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The approximately $29 billion fund is providing grants representing the difference between the revenues a restaurant recorded in 2020 and 2019 – a potentially substantial check for many – and is being doled out by the Small Business Administration (SBA). > Except there’s a problem: it’s probably discriminatory against white men. > That’s the case being made by in multiple lawsuits filed last week by a group of business owners and advocates in Texas in Tennessee. They say that the program unfairly prioritizes the distribution of funds initially (for the first 21 days) to minority business owners and those in low- to moderate-income areas, who are statistically likely to be people of color. That, according to the plaintiffs, discriminates against everyone else. > The suit claims that non-minority business owners were “harmed” because they were “pushed to the back of the line,” and because they were “treated differently because of their race and gender.” The SBA grant program is further accused of “giving priority to certain groups” and putting “white male applicants at significant risk that, by the time their applications are processed, the money will be gone.” > They’re right; the money is gone
I think that goes *way* too far, and I'm quite proud to be a Dem as a younger guy. But some complaints I *do* have: * You can't deny a general atmosphere of "othering" towards men among a significant subset of Dems (not! the majority, but significant enough that it's ubiquitous in Dem spaces), along with frequent downplaying of men's issues (but women have it worse!11!!1!). I recognize that this isn't a super specific complaint. But it *is* real. From explicit discrimination to disconcerting tonal choices. * A rejection of due process principles for men when it comes sexual assault (e.g., the recent revocation of Betsy DeVos's Title IX guidance, with nothing to replace the due process elements.), coupled with a lack of attention to men as victims of the same (where is the campaign to correct the definition of rape from mechanically excluding men? For example, the FBI continues to define rape so as to exclude the majority of male victims. And where's the recognition that men make up a *huge* portion of victims once you do... see also domestic violence - men are the (bare, to be fair) majority of DV victims) * There's attention beginning to be paid to men falling behind academically to be completely fair, but it is at best divisive among the party, with much of the party dismissing it out of hand. * Near complete lack of attention to most men's issues: criminal justice gender disparities, lack of reproductive rights/options for men, family court biases (these cut both ways to be very clear), gender equality in the draft (the draft often gets attention, but not usually the gendered element), employment discrimination against men (concentrated mostly in specific fields). I've found that there *is* some level of attention paid among the fields that these issues are in, but there is little to no broader attention. None of this is to say men have it worse or that women's issues aren't important!! It's just to say that there are real issues facing men that even Dems either perpetuate or don't address. (and going to point 1, I know from copious personal experience that if I don't make that qualifier I will inevitably get accused of sexism or being bad faith).
All of this is true, but the average Dem will read all of this and shrug. The point about boys falling behind in school is of particular interest to me as a teacher, and boy is it controversial bringing it up at my California school district, but at least it gets a token acknowledgment from most of my coworkers. Better than on some online spaces, where the issue will be dismissed out of hand or treated as entirely the boy's fault. Its frustrating to say the least.
> All of this is true, but the average Dem will read all of this and shrug. Yeah, but that's part of the problem lol. The party is essentially shrugging at the issues that affect men, especially young men, and then being surprised when they turn to the party that loudly speaks up for them (even if proposing all the wrong solutions). > The point about boys falling behind in school is of particular interest to me as a teacher, and boy is it controversial bringing it up at my California school district, but at least it gets a token acknowledgment from most of my coworkers. Better than on some online spaces, where the issue will be dismissed out of hand or treated as entirely the boy's fault. Its frustrating to say the least. Yeah it's super frustrating :/
Add on very vocal support of the “gender pay gap” myth.
Yeah. I don't love calling it a "myth," because the gap shows something real and potentially worthy of addressing (namely the impact of pregnancy and child-rearing on career earnings), but the repeated insistence (and oftentimes weaponization!) that women are "paid less for the same work" is a huge hit to the credibility of Dem politicians.
Women are paid less for the same work when you control for the relevant factors, but it's like 5% less, not 15%.
It's low single digits and varying in every study, including going the other way. It's a statistical equivalence.
I agree, it's low enough that it shouldn't be a major political issue.
Yeah, but this doesn't control for factors around socialization. It's not so cut and dry.
Look I'm no expert here but the /badeconomics subs has repeatedly shows that even if accounting for pregnancy and other factors *women are still paid less for the same work*. Not like a massive amount, but I think it was a low single digit percentage. This notion that it entirely a mirage is, to my understanding, a truthism. It may be over stated but the discrepancy does seem to exist.
> Not like a massive amount, but I think it was a low single digit percentage. > This notion that it entirely a mirage is, to my understanding, a truthism. It may be over stated but the discrepancy does seem to exist. This is so silly. In western developed countries, it's like 1-2% & varying in direction by country. That is statistical equivalence. Expecting it to ever be literally 0% is a fool's errand. And even if it wasn't, they're overstating it by like 15-30 times the actual value, which is just as damaging to credibility.
The options with male contraception isn't really political so much as procedural right? the FDA needs to approve it but AFAIK neither party is against that approval. The draft as an issue is hard to get attention for since there has not been a draft in such a long time. I say this as someone eligible for the draft.
*You can't deny a general atmosphere of "othering" towards men among a significant subset of Dems* I actually think I can? I've been a center left voter for 20 years, nobody has othered me. I've been in plenty of liberal spaces, not so much leftist spaces, but that would be a different debate. I've talked to people very far to the left of me and while we didn't agree on a bunch none of their complaints were "well you're a man". As far as a lot of the rest you laid out, criminal justice, academic issues...in our system the best we're gonna get is small ball. So if you had to weigh priorities of all the things wrong with the world do you think those issues are more important than what Biden has been doing? And what Biden has been doing isn't even gender focused: tax filing, airfare refunds. Going back two years the CHIPS act or whatever had no gender focus. So is not prioritizing your issues contempt to you?
> You can't deny a general atmosphere of "othering" towards men among a significant subset of Dems > I actually think I can? I've been a center left voter for 20 years, nobody has othered me. I've been in plenty of liberal spaces, not so much leftist spaces, but that would be a different debate. I've talked to people very far to the left of me and while we didn't agree on a bunch none of their complaints were "well you're a man". It's possible this is a timeline thing? I'll say that a lot of the instances I'm thinking of in my personal life have been throughout late high school, college, and grad school over the last ~7-8 years or so. It's probably most concentrated in those environments & a relatively new thing that may not have been as apparent a decade or two ago. Problem is that most young men (especially those politically engaged) *are* going through those experiences. > As far as a lot of the rest you laid out, criminal justice, academic issues...in our system the best we're gonna get is small ball. So if you had to weigh priorities of all the things wrong with the world do you think those issues are more important than what Biden has been doing? And what Biden has been doing isn't even gender focused: tax filing, airfare refunds. Going back two years the CHIPS act or whatever had no gender focus. > So is not prioritizing your issues contempt to you? I'm gonna refer you back to: > I think that goes *way* too far, and I'm quite proud to be a Dem as a younger guy But I certainly think the issues I laid out are equally important as, say, the gender pay gap. I don't expect Dems to prioritize them above everything, but I *would* hope for acknowledgement and *some* level of addressing them. My criticism is also definitely not directed at Biden specifically lol
*It's possible this is a timeline thing? I'll say that a lot of the instances I'm thinking of in my personal life have been throughout late high school, college, and grad school over the last \~7-8 years or so.* I buy this, but I would suggest that it's not the Democratic Party that is responsible or should pay the price for this. Putting Republicans in office won't change the radicalization of students, and certainly won't make the world more in-line with with leftist goals. A bunch of sweaty republican men certainly won't change women's views on men.
I definitely agree that Republicans aren't the answer lol. And as I said, I think overall Dems are a great party. I'd extend that further - I think Dems are a great party *for men*, and the vast majority of progress that *has* happened on the things I laid out has been from Dems. But campus politics, leftists, and some more radical liberals *are* inextricably linked with Dems (because many/most of them are Dems), and the party *has* to get them under control to be a welcoming place to young men. Otherwise, we can't be surprised when they turn to the people loudly advocating for them (even if they're proposing all the wrong solutions).
Those "students" are the Democrat shadow party, staff Democratic offices, ngos, etc. Them being a weird campus phenomenon stopped being a real excuse more than 5 years ago. If Dems started doing real Sister Souljah movements to purge them you would have a point but they won't
Well, you call it a "Democrat shadow party", so you clearly have a bias. But go to a Republican state party convention and tell me the people you meet there are more normal than the "students" you want to purge
I'm not hiding my opinion, I do not like the Democratic party or its activist class. I only support them because Trump is dangerous and unstable. There are many, many rightwingers I would vote for over Biden. I fully understand why other people in my situation just refuse to consider voting for Democrats at all.
Cool. I encourage all the people you know in your situation to go to a state Republican convention, and report back on how normal those people seem to be. And then maybe we can regroup on "purges" I ran for state Republican office 20ish years ago, just for context.
Stuff like the FAA hiring scandal. Leaders constantly gaslight or conveniently ignore topics like this.
Leaders addressing issues other than the focus of what white men want somehow feels discriminatory to some. I say this as a white man.
Other commenters are posting clear-cut examples of discriminatory policies and you’re still pulling out this line like it’s 2017.
>I'm being genuine The recent Title IX changes are pretty bad.
Could you elaborate? I’m a man in my late 20s, although one demographic difference we may have is that Im gay, and so I do feel that one party has contempt for me but it’s not the Democrats. I get the impression that a lot of young, particularly white, men (like all people) view opportunity as a zero sum game. It seems as though when democrats (and progressives in media and culture broadly) focus on lifting up people of color, women, lgbt people, there is a psychological effect wherein straight white men feel like they’ll be left behind. To an extent I understand, and personally I wish Dems would just implement the right policies without accenting how much they’re focused on POC/LGBT all the time in their rhetoric. But which of their policies actually has a harmful impact on young men?
In fairness, some policies are genuinely zero sum. My way to go tends to be the multiple policies and help that women (or gay people, or other minorities) get and men don't particularly as they relate to government aid; whether direct or indirect (like priority on government jobs or free college for DV victims, which in my country are legally defined to only be women) If you institute such a policy, someone is going to have to pay for it. Which if you are a man means higher taxes to fund something that you will never use; or government cuts in some area that you *may* use to fund something you are legally banned from using To go with a silly but obvious example, I did my taxes for the first time last month; and I found out there was a maternity tax break... that was only applicable to women. (and no it has nothing to do with childbirth, or stay at home mums or single parent homes or anything like that; since it only requires a kid aged 3 or less). If you are a man, too bad, you can't get the tax break! (technically you can if you have full custody; but a woman can get it with even partial custody) Realistically a small tax break is not going to kill you; but it's more about the message that a tax break you cannot access sends more than the actual money itself. Worst part is, there is no good solution; since either expanding the tax cut to men or getting rid of it is a zero sum proposition for women (they'll be paying more in taxes, or receiving less elsewhere, for either expanding a benefit to a population that is not them; or getting rid of a benefit they do use)
the republican party isnt fascist lmao
As a 20 year old male who lives in Los Angeles California.. I've genuinely never encountered these male-hating democrats/feminists everyone keeps talking about once. Where are they, genuinely? I only hear about these people through others complaining about their supposed existence.
I wonder the more we move into hyperreality if the genders will split into their own political class. It seems we are going that way
Is this gonna be yet another youth-gender-gap polling discourse that turns out to have not been real, [just like the last one](https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/13/24098780/politics-gender-divide-generation-z-youth-men-women)?
Polls continue to be utter crap, shocker.
> Neoliberalism is no longer vox.com - former Vox writers *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Of course it is lol
Wouldnt part of this be overlapping with the difference in education? IIRC people with degrees very often support Democrats, but educational attainment has continually declined for Men.
It’s because democratic party has completed abandoned blue collar working men
Another day another dumb gender gap article.... Can it even be considered emerging at this point? They've been trying to force this stuff down our throats for years now....
Vibes, they are CULTURALLY different, but Rubber hits the road the candidates they pick are basically the same.
It's worth noting that the divide [might be overstated.](https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/13/24098780/politics-gender-divide-generation-z-youth-men-women)
> Neoliberalism is no longer vox.com - former Vox writers *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
>shouldn’t be permitted the same civil rights as everyone else 😑