proud of the UK
The color choice makes me angry!!
As a Canadian, it makes sense to me!
Makes sense literally everywhere which isn’t the US
If it had used “Left” it would. The established color of “Liberal” is yellow, and liberals are people who believe society should be run for profit.
Only in Germany. Our liberals are blue. Our social democrats are green. Our greens are red because of an alliance with the social democrats.
But the political positions aren’t even coloured at all? It’s blue for men and red for women.
You’re right. I read the first graph too quickly.
What happened in South Korea in 2015?
the government stopped putting the chemicals in the water that makes the frogs gay
Gamergate idiology hit hard there. There’s recently been some conspiracy nonsense about a hand gesture in games there.
There’s recently been some conspiracy nonsense about a hand gesture in games there.
par for the course: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture-is-now-listed-as-a-symbol-of-hate
Uhhh, it’s a little bit different.
The hand gesture in question is a pinching motion using the index and thumb finger, which had been used as a symbol in the now-defunct Megalia, one of Korea’s largest radical feminist online communities, to ridicule the size of Korean men’s genitals.
Yes, it is different.
This is only going to increase as men watch their quality of life continue to degrade, while they get ignored at best and blamed for everything at worse. Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
Conservatism grows when people are struggling.
Poor oppressed men. The fact that their side piece can’t get an abortion anymore must really get them down.
Have you considered not being a hateful piece of shit. People like you are why the blue graphs have the direction they have. You would do well to consider whether declaring half the population as evil for no other reason than their gender, can ever lead to a successful result.
There certainly is a hateful piece of shit in this thread, but it’s not me.
But I’m sure if you just keep externalizing instead of working on yourself, things will magically fix themselves for you!
What have i said to deserve your hostile response to me previously? You derided and mocked me simply for sharing how i feel on the issue, when i never said anything negative about women.
This. This is exactly why this stupid gap exists, because of shitty people like you.
“Treat everyone equally” except men fuck them apparently.
You’re assuming a lot things there bubba.
You were pretty clear in your comment bro. Did you mean something else and it came out wrong?
Correct.
Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
Ahh yes, because houses are cheaper for women, obviously. /s
This has nothing to do with the person being a man or woman.
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
That “victory after victory” is in large part just women catching up to existing men’s rights.
Just today there was a story on the front page of a male domestic abuse survivor who tried to start up a shelter for men, who eventually killed himself because he got treated like shit for it.
Now compare that to resources allocated for women victims of domestic abuse.
1 in 4 women are victims of it, while 1 in 6 men are so its not like its not a huge issue for us either. We went from a society that didnt treat abuse as an issue for anyone to one that has, yet having nothing to support us is “catching up” in your books?
I wrote “in large part”, not “always”.
Of course there are some issues where there should be more support for men. But I am pretty sure female to male domestic violence is not at the top of the list on why these people vote conservative. The conservative “solution” would be to shut down male AND female support in that regard.
Remember that woman who murdered her husband and got probation for it? She stabbed him 100+ times! It happened like a week ago too. I’d consider that a win for women being able to murder people, a loss for men, and a loss for that judge.
I will gladly support any initiative for more equality in the justice system (even though we are probably not even in the same country).
I am not aware of any initiatives, though. The conservative focus, depending on the country, seems to be on hating foreigners or banning abortions. So I am not sure why anybody would want to vote conservative if they want an equal justice system.
Exactly. More lenient sentencing is definitely part of female privilege.
Oh wait, no, I mean part of the horrible misogynist practice of “putting women on a pedestal”, of course. Gotta make sure that we frame all of the privilege that being a woman brings as actually just more evidence of how bad men are!
Then why arent feminists protesting for more prison time?
Victory for women? Like how they are losing their reproductive rights and going to jail for miscarriages in America?
Leftism is not the status quo in the slightest. Men currently are far more privledged than women.
Liberal is not leftist.
Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
this is true
Conservatism grows when people are struggling.
also true
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
I don’t get this argument. “Supporting the status quo” is literally what conservatism is about, no?
“Supporting the status quo” is literally what conservatism is about, no?
Not when it attempts to violently overthrow the government, no. Liberal=change and Conservative=preserve status quo is outdated and no longer true in most cases/places. e.g. some say that Brexit was quite a “change” for the UK? But in any case it was most definitely not preserving the present status quo.
Mostly conservatism tries to recreate things from ~30 years ago as a nostalgic and optimistic hope that returning to the past will help overcome the current badness, e.g. as a method of combating inflation.
Except on top of it all is the difference between what is said vs. done, e.g. to return to the past economic success in the USA we’d have to increase the top marginal tax rate to 90%, but instead conservatives lowered taxes on the wealthy still further. “Conservatism” is often only the line that the
car salesmenpoliticians sell, same as “Liberalism”, for someone to get themselves into power.I view conservatism more as trying to relive the past. A rose tinted one, that seems appealing to people unhappy with today.
I don’t know how true this is. In my own experience most men I’ve interacted with in the past 10 years are more and more central and less solidly conservative over time. The trend seems to be moving towards liberal. Of course that could be where I live (suburbs in a 800K+ US city).
The graphs show that though? Most men go down to around the “0” line.
Am I reading it wrong? Down is more conservative, no?
Well yes, moderate is more conservative than liberal. The US line for men also seems to skirt around the center line, plus there’s a reason MAGA people stand a chance so it brings down the average.
I guess what I’m saying is that it would be opposite from my experience. The line would historically be below 0 for men and overtime going up toward 0.
Perhaps more men seem to be getting sucked into manosphere / alt right circles since gamergate. But the US isn’t homogeneous either.
At the same time perhaps in some circles men are coming to a better understanding of patriarchy and feminism and moving more liberal. So there is a growing divide but unfortunately in raw numbers there is a slight trend toward conservatism.
Still, I think the entire graph and the data, semantics, and methods behind it deserve scrutiny. Like, exactly what views are being considered? Are there more women becoming socialist? Or socially progressive? Or what?
Have you not noticed the rise in groups like Proud Boys, Patriot Front, and the Three Percenters? Patriot Front has people on overpasses waving signs in my area and they are in the news several times per year for marching in different cities. Just the other day they were recorded in New York City, unable to figure out how to swipe metro cards to get into the subway, so dozens of them charged on through without paying, so it isn’t like they are staying holed up in rural militia compounds out of sight. Far right extremism is both active and on the rise locally and globally.
I’ve always chalked that up to the vocal minority. I know literally no one that admits to being apart of that and just by talking to them you can pretty quickly sus out what they tend to believe politically. People love to tell you their political opinion for the most part.
Suburbs tend to be more progressive than exburbs which are more progressive than a city in Boomfuck, Kansas. I think that controlling for your personal environment might lead to a more objective perspective of the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias?lang=en
The line is where ‘central’ is
Right but I’m saying that in the past men were below the line and are moving up.
Trump had more white female and Hispanic voters his second run than the first.
I would take this data with a grain of salt. I’m sure this is self reported yes/no or excludes political vote markers. I’m not sure how they compiled the data when it shows it was simple yes/no to am I conservative or liberal at a glance.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/30/new-trump-poll-women-hispanic-voters-497199
More info because why not:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053929419/feel-like-you-dont-fit-in-either-political-party-heres-why
Here in South Korea - Both the liberal and conservative party are very conservative. It wasn’t until 10-15 years ago that women could even be the “leader” of the house. So the delta in conservative/liberal is more likely to do with economic/war policies with the North than much else (since men get conscripted, and North policies is one of the key differentiators between the 2 parties)
right. Korean politics seem to come down to “aid vs embargo”. moon jae in was on the aid side, right? I haven’t followed the current prez, what’s their deal?
President Yoon is a fascist that got into power by targeting women and disabled people.
Wouldn’t it be men making the decision on conscription policies though? A more liberal / less sexist government would be more likely to bin that.
The key difference I tend to see between men and women’s issues is that men’s issues are often caused by other men in power. Feminism, ironically enough, can also help with a lot of problems disenfranchised men have.
Sorry I’m rambling a bit.
Sooooo yes, everything you said is correct, but there’s a missing piece of context: binning the military would mean binning South Korea as we know it, so nobody (liberal or conservative) is in favor of binning it. The lines are much more murky.
Binning a sexist conscription system is not anything close to “binning the military”
It very literally is, in South Korea’s case.
How so?
Beginning to conscript women as well as men does not equate to abolishing the military, or am I missing something?
They could conscript women, but you can imagine how hard it would be for that legislation to pass.
What? Do you want half the army shopping for new shoes to wear in the trenches while the other half has to wait for them at the shopping mall fountain?
Were you trying to be funny, or is that your genuine understanding of women in the millitary?
Men are not a monolith.
South Korea also has one of the biggest anti-feminism movements in the world. They just eliminated the gender ministry and rolled back protections for women. Not coincidentally, South Korea is Jordan Peterson’s biggest audience outside the US.
The translation of “gender ministry” is completely misleading, I don’t know why they made it that in English because that’s not what it is. In Korean it’s “여성가족부” which means “Woman’s family department”
Perpetuates the false dichotomy of a linear political spectrum of either liberal or conservative and that in and of itself is one of the reasons for these trends. Liberalism has nothing to offer men. Leftism does.
You might as well be asking men how much they are willing to sacrifice for others vs. look after their own interests. When the inequality gap widens and the majority live below average economically, don’t you think people will tend to become more selfish? That’s all these charts show.
Conservatism is essentially synonymous with patriarchy and on a very shallow level, it’s easy to see how men would choose that over the status quo. That will surely be better for men than this slow attrition of status that comes with ever increasing wealth concentration. This isn’t true but it is an obvious conclusion.
The real question, which this survey completely ignores, conveniently, is what we should all be doing together to better the status quo for all. Because I believe almost everyone except a small and shrinking fraction agrees that current trends are not working for anyone.
Perpetuates the false dichotomy of a linear political spectrum of either liberal or conservative and that in and of itself is one of the reasons for these trends
the graph explicitly takes 1 dimension of the spectrum to look at it in isolation. This is exactly what single graphs do best.
which this survey completely ignores, conveniently
have you looked at the source of the graph?
Why would you intentionally look at this complex situation in 1 dimension. That dimension being the most overplayed talked about dimension because it creates conflict between groups based on identities. Instead of looking at the actual problem that the dimension completely ignores.
If I am reading this correctly, men drifting towards conservative and women drifting towards liberal?
That would reflect the culture found in apps - I feel like men with andrew tate and things like truth social/rumble/kick and women drift more towards stuff like reddit/tiktok/instagram where you can usually see a lot more liberal idealogy.
For those who are actually using this data to make commentary on anything—I feel like it’s poorly represented and not at all adequately powered. I would take this with a grain of salt
i sorry about women in south korea
Is this American liberal or real liberal?
It’s relative to the nationstate’s domestic policies in question. And just a heads up, I know when people make statements like this it just reveals a lack of understanding regarding foreign countries’ domestic politics. However, it’s also important to point out that the meme itself is incredibly ethnocentric and is fundamentally based on a dismissal of the validity of political discourse outside Western Europe and North America. You don’t mean to be racist, right?
This “meme” is not ethnocentric. Liberalism has a definition. The meaning became lost to Americans thanks to two red scares and a cold war. So now you have centrists like Bernie Sanders calling themselves socialist, which is absolutely not true.
Bernie believes in the eradication of capitalism, he’s a socialist working in a fucked over Overton window that means the best policies he can argue for would fall under social democracy at best.
Which, to be very clear, makes him a raging commie by American political standards.
The only people who argue he’s a capitalist are people that think socialism is when poor.
Bernie believes in the eradication of capitalism
No, he believes in the eradication of “über” capitalism, as his new book states: It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. He is a There Is No Alternative, Nordic model welfare capitalist. He never has and never will call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
As a Swede, what he’s been advocating for doesn’t sound like the nordic model to me.
He specifically describes himself as a democratic socialist instead of a social democrat but I also haven’t read the book so feel free to quote an excerpt from it saying he thinks the capitalist model is the only viable one.
During Sander’s 2020 presidential campaign he called for corporate accountability reform which would have given workers the ability to elect a portion of the board of directors for the corporation they work for.
That is a feature of the Nordic model—as I said above—and is still capitalism: Worker representation on corporate boards of directors
I’m about as far-left as they come. I want to understand.
What would it mean in terms of policy to “call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production”? Would you prefer something closer to the Meidner Plan? Because that’s further left than Bernie’s plan but could also be considered part of the “Nordic Model”.
As far as I can tell, this kind of rhetoric stems from a lack of understanding of the economic similarities between the “Nordic Model” and Chinese-style communism.
Socialism can develop differently in different countries. As such I believe that it’s better to engage in international solidarity, rather than nit pick differences.
But, I’m open to being wrong.
Liberalism actually has a lot of definitions. It is a classical philosophical concept, a modern political philosophical concept, a term to describe a lower value of risk aversion, a term to mean supplied in abundance, and (here) a political science term used to describe an entire half of a relative political spectrum whose center point is determined by the specific body politic being measured. So, big shooter, no you are mistaken at a very basic level. All nations have both a liberal and conservative spectrum within their own political system. And, just to raise your level of education on the subject, you know what? Even within those subgroups, there is a liberal and conservative divide based on the relative ideology of the subgroup. And fun fact, you can yet still divide those subgroups of subgroups — this is a large part of how the phenomenon of group polarization happens.
All nations have both a liberal and conservative spectrum within their own political system.
See, here we have an Overton window that only allows for liberalism, as if socialism doesn’t exist. As if the political spectrum only goes from center-left to right, erasing the left altogether. The left is erased because Burgerland purged them.
“American” is hardly an ethnicity (except maybe if you are referring to native Americans of course), so this has nothing to do with racism. Secondly I assume the author of the comment is refering to the simple fact that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have drastically different connotations in Europe and the US.
They also have drastically different connotations in America depending on whether the user can read a book.
I think it’s a higher bar of actually reading one. Only around 20% of Americans read a book, any book, within the ages 18-29.
deleted by creator
It’s Burgerland liberal, which is center-left to right. Burgerland conservative is right to fash.
Or American conservative or real conservative
not surprising. the american right is specifically catered to address male grievances.
not fix these grievances mind you, but exploit them
Much like the left caters to women and minorities… good point.
deleted by creator
This data is the World world, not just “America world”.
Also, if men are going right, then the left needs to step up their offering.
This “data” is hilarious. You should read the article it’s attached to. They throw these charts up and then just use 4 or 5 anecdotes to take a victory lap for conservatism.
“When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
While this is true, it’s also true that pendulum swings can go further in the opposite direction than equality.
While a trite example, in the recent Barbie film, at the end when things are going back to the seemingly good way, the men in Barbieland ask if they can have a seat on the supreme court and are told no, which is then explained as Barbieland being a mirror to the real world such that as there’s increased equality in the real world then equality for men in the mirror would increase.
Apparently the writers weren’t familiar with the fact there’s four women on the supreme court right now and a woman has been on the court since 1981 (around twice as close to the creation of Barbie than to the present day).
Even in the context of its justifiably imbalanced equality it failed to be proportionally imbalanced.
There’s interesting research around how the privileged underestimate the degree to which the good things that happen to them are because of privilege, but that at the same time the underprivileged overestimate how often the bad things which happen are because of bias. In theory both are ego-preserving adaptations. But it also means that either side is going to have a difficult time correctly identifying equality from their relative subjective perspectives.
Nice quote. Won’t win over men who are shifting Right because of consistent targeted alienation in involvement from the Left
If other people having rights is “targeted alienation”, then what should we call denying those people rights based on things they can’t control? Because that sounds like actual targeted alienation.
Read my comment again, slowly. What does “alienation in involvement” mean?
If uplifting groups of oppressed people to an equal standard is alienating to you, then you are falling into the tolerance paradox, and you should probably stop that.
You’re straw manning here, that’s not what he said at all.
He’s referring to the knee jerk lesser treatment of men, because their men, because some other men have done bad shit. If you’re constantly grouped in with the worst of a group just for existing, of course you get sucked into that group.
Hard to Strawman, a Slippery Slope. I was merely pointing out it’s a Slippery Slope without whipping out my Fallacies.
Correct. Why would anyone go for a worse option for themselves?
Edit: A benefit to one group does not mean a detriment to others. This is not a zero sum game.
The funny thing is that the left could offer so many things for men:
- address mental health issues
- paternal leave / support for fatherhood
- Less dangerous work
- rehabilitation in prisons
- a free lamborghini
- address homelessness
All of which are mostly men issues.
So we should just let ‘minorities’ suffer? The term appeasement comes to mind, as I don’t know what else you could be advocating here.
Why not both? Benefit to minorities and benefit to majorities.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
Let me get this straight, if you have food to survive, and someone else who doesn’t have food wants some food, not even your food, just some food, you need more food before they get any at all?
Did … did you even read my post? What is going on?
Let me re-write it using your analogy.
Why not both? Food for minorities and food for majorities.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
Is it really worse? Or does it just hurt your feels when women can decide something on their own?
Name one thing thats gotten better for men in 50 years.
Here’s 3.
- Addressing men’s mental health. Normalizing therapy and talking about issues.
- Promoting ideals and examples of healthy intimate relationships: communication, setting boundaries, etc.
- Moving a way from the insecure, performative, fucked up version of “masculinity” – e.g. “I can’t wear pink, play with dolls with my kid, or bake because those things are feminine”.
Yeah, fuck men who want to wear blue and play with cars. Being a man isn’t allowed. Unless you accept feminization, you’re the enemy. No wonder men choose to vote for the bad guys, when the “good” side demand that they play a role as weak.
being gay is more accepted. there’s also much less pressure to conform to masculine standards. e.g., being able to talk about feelings, expressing yourself in fashion/makeup, joining in traditionally feminine careers like
nursing/teaching (both of which have exploded in the past 50 years). just to name a fewthey also haven’t used the draft in 50 yearsedit: striked through things are either factually incorrect (nursing) or more nuanced than my original comment implied (military draft)
being gay is more accepted.
Fair. A win for all.
there’s also much less pressure to conform to masculine standards. e.g., being able to talk about feelings
Not the wider experience. Men are still stigmatised for expressing themselves. Example: how often do men get to be emotionally vulnerable in a public setting compared to women?
joining in traditionally feminine careers like nursing/teaching
This is flat out wrong, it’s actually getting worse.
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/gender-equality-and-through-teaching-profession
Sex ratios in healthcare occupations: population based study.
they also haven’t used the draft in 50 years
That’s because there are enough men who are financially destitute, who sell their lives into the military.
Don’t need a draft when there is enough blood money going around.
The fact that I can’t wear a skirt in public without facing backlash, but a woman wearing pants is seen as normal makes me feel like there is still a lot of progress we have to make. I guess it’s equivalent would be women going topless casually. I really hate conservative/puritan values.
Why do things need to get better for men? Things have been pretty excellent for men for a very very long time.
- high suicide rate
- male loneliness has always been terrible and it’s on the rise
- 19 out of 20 deaths at the work place are men
- most likely to have poor work-life balance
- most likely to be imprisoned
- most likely to be homeless
- most likely to NOT get custody of the kids they love
Pretty excellent, aye? These men just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Why not both? Benefit to women, and benefit to men.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
You’re not wrong, but the wage gap? Not going to close if we give everyone a raise. It would be the same wage gap.
The gender pay gap is insignificant and inconsequential compared to the income differences between working and owning classes. Also, much of the pay gap is due to men culturally tending to not have the option of escaping the grindset. “Honey I’m going to quit my job and do something that doesn’t alienate me, yes it’s going to pay less” is not something universally accepted by wives.
I’m pretty sure that by this point most reasonable people have realized that the wage gap is a myth, so that’s probably not your best example.
Why would anyone go for a worse option for themselves?
Because if everyone only voted for the things that benefit them, then it’s possible to end up in a situation that’s worse for everybody. If the majorities repeatedly votes for a small benefit to themselves and a large detriment to everyone else, this is basically guaranteed to happen. This is also why voting out of spite is a bad idea.
Example: Let’s examine a population consisting of 60% white people and 60% Christians, uncorrelated (so 36% white Christians, 24% nonwhite Christians, 24% white non-Christians, and 16% nonwhite non-Christians). This population is making two votes: one that will be Very Bad for nonwhites, and one that will be Very Bad for non-Christians, with a small benefit to white people or Christians respectively. Both will pass, which results in:
-
36% of the population (white Christians) gets two small benefits
-
48% of the population (white non-Christians and nonwhite Christians combined) gets a small benefit and something Very Bad for them
-
16% of the population (nonwhite non-Christians) gets two Very Bad results passed against them
So the overall result is negative for 64% of the population, despite everyone voting for their interests and everyone voting! This is because the legislation was more bad for the minority than it was good for the majority.
Bonus: I believe you can use this to prove that you can use a sequence of legislation to get into literally any position you want if everyone votes strictly for things that help them, and I saw a good YT video on that topic, but I can’t find it right now.
If the majorities repeatedly votes for … a large detriment to everyone else
I never argued for this. It is possible to vote in a commensalistic manner.
Only if the appropriate legislation is available to vote on. If the only legislation available is something that hurts you a little and helps someone else a lot, it may be in society’s best interest to vote for it. If you were in a culture that encouraged that, your actions would be repaid by others doing the same, eventually securing large gains for everyone. This is the opposite of my example above, but the math works out the same.
Essentially, there are situations in which the logical choice is to vote for something that hurts you, or to not vote for something that helps you. (Zero-sum-like situations are especially likely to have this occur.) Over a long period of time, what matters is how much each bill helps society overall, not how much it helps you in particular. (Yes, this stops working if the other groups won’t do the same for you.)
-
We tried that, ended up with a bunch of grifters coming in, doing a bunch of damage, and then making “why I left the left” videos.
There is a path of healing but it’s not going to happen until they address their white supremacy and take it behind the shed.
deleted by creator
FYI the 2nd web.archive.org link just links to a locked article page.
ugh, sorry
Still a broken link
not on my machine:
Hmm maybe just a mobile Firefox issue.
I’m surprised the UK still has net positive movement considering we house the Queen of TERFdom.
Well, perhaps the UK has a more… Traditional liberalism. One that sees the new king as a Young (albeit a tad geriatric) whippersnapper, you know? A liberalism that tries to conserve the olden times.
Looks like it went pretty Conservative around the Corbyn era. This is misleading to people who probably think that Tories and Labour are the equivalent of Republicans and Democrats. If they want to show left vs right they should be looking at people leaning towards the likes of UKIP and the Brexit party.
With the shit show the conservative government has been recently I’m not surprised.
its the opposite in my household
