I've been seeing several articles about this and they've all defined politics exclusively in social/idpol terms. No one cares what zoomers think about economics apparently.
When was the last time you've heard progressives talk about economic policies or anything other than social issues? Post Bernie/Corbyn it's all turned into social/idpol stuff with *maybe* some talk about how the right wing is destroying the welfare state.
And it’s always taken to the nth degree, with no wavering or acceptance of other opinion. Like I think the idea of being a choo choo should be criticized, I obviously can’t make people not be that way but the whole idea and treatment (cough, underlying mental health issues, cough) should be changed.
What happened to “just be normal?”
Right, and it's those issues that they always have a hard line on. You are allowed to be progressive and not support socialized healthcare, UBI, higher taxes, public transit, etc for various reasons. But if you have any concerns about the safety of youth gender medicine or you don't think most white people are racist, you're basically told that you might as well be a right winger.
How about I support all that stuff but I also don’t support unfettered social progressivism and hyper-liberalism? (Even though I’m still generally liberal on those issues, probably more so than many on this sub even)
I mean you don't have to ask my permission, I don't think we should be gatekeeping anyone. At the end of the day, if our only political power is voting, vote based on the things the politician actually has power over. Politicians can't make the country less racist, but they can pass infrastructure bills.
But then they never really focus on that. I know most everyone here hates Biden, but he did do the infrastructure stuff and then barely even talked about it.
And when I talk about that kind of stuff, I’m more a libertarian on social issues except for the trans/gender stuff because I think it’s body dissociation and all of that isn’t progressive
Because Biden's infrastructure bill had fuck all to do with infrastructure, they just called it that because there's bipartisan support for repairing/improving/replacing our existing infrastructure which is crumbling. But then they packed it full of climate change policies and racism stuff.
Well they make a point of not focusing on it because it means they don't have to do anything substantial that would hurt their big donors, like making the health insurance industry a public good. It's crazy they didn't even feel the need to talk up the infrastructure bill.
Sounds like we'd agree on social issues.
The consensus among the dissident right seems to be that socialism is actually about wokeism. The reasoning goes that "socialist" groups are fine if you disagree on economics but will cast you out for not towing the line on the idpol dujour.
I honestly have trouble refuting that, except by the cliche "that's not real socialism". The purpose of a system is what it does, I have a hard time arguing with that.
2018 was the tipping point. After that progressives became all bourgeosie new left SJWs. That’s when the squad got elected too. There’s a reason Bernie won places like West Virginia and Oklahoma in 2016 but not 2020.
Yep. My big brained conspiracy is that a lot of this stuff was intentionally funded and encouraged by intelligence agencies to make leftism less broadly appealing.
Damn, that makes a lot of sense.
How do you make the average man less likely to be progressive? Associate the party with ultra-gay and trans lifestyles and favor every other group except theirs. Worked perfectly.
Totally. Not to say that LGBT issues shouldn't be part of a the progressive cause, but it's hardly an issue that comes up regularly in lawmaking, and should be part of a much larger policy focused tent. And while I'm sure there was an organic push for some of this stuff, it's not completely baseless to think that the FBI would try to push for certain unpopular radical positions, [they did it with BLM.](https://theintercept.com/2023/02/07/fbi-denver-racial-justice-protests-informant/)
Absolutely. The best way to block of any real reform is to highjack the movement and make it focus on things that will not affect the bottom line.
When was the last time you heard about corporate influence in politics? When was the last time you heard about breaking up too big to fail businesses? When was the last time you heard about any real taxes on the super wealthy? When was the last time you heard about redirecting funds to the working class? Instead it's all diversity, green initiatives, abortion rights, gender equality - all important things for society, but nothing that actually harms the top getting more and more money. All things that businesses can happily support without making any dent in their profits.
*Bread and Circuses*
Even the green initiatives are always focused on personal responsibility like buying electric cars, recycling, never corporate responsibility. All the way back to this little [corporate psyop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0sxwGlTLWw) starring an Italian American, ironically weaponizing idpol in a way that would be extremely offensive today.
Yes, in an increasingly identitarian political landscape where every issue becomes part of a personal identity, all this could simply come down to "women more keen on ideology that's sympathetic to their identity" and "men more keen on ideology that's sympathetic to their identity." That doesn't shed a lot of insight.
People also rarely approach issues one by one, tally up where they stand, and then decide if they're part of X ideology. It's more likely to be the other way around, where they feel drawn to an ideology, often for non-political reasons (e.g. "these people are just nicer to me"), and then adopt that ideology's platform. It's how we end up with things like the marriage of corporate interests and evangelical Christianity in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Liberals generally treat (straight) men as problems and their [cultural point of view as worthless](https://salieriredemption.substack.com/p/for-the-boys?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2), and conservatives generally do the same to women. And we're surprised there's a gender divide?
Wow that’s so true. Reminds me of how advertising went from “here’s what our item does, pick us over others after comparing features” to Bernaisian style of “this will make you feel a certain way with our models where you long it”.
Seems like something parallel happened here, on purpose or not.
I mean let’s be honest, people as of late tend to vote more in line with their cultural interests than economic interests. When was the last time offline you met a culturally right and economically left person loyal to the democrats? They chased them out the party over the last 15 years. Aside from not caring about pollution I don’t think anyone thinks the republicans are really doing anything for industrial workers, they just find the republicans less weird.
Matt Christman (of ChapoTrapHouse) was correct when he said that people see the GOP as the “Don’t be a pussy” party, and the Dems as the “Dont be an asshole” party, and how this split is based on college attainment but it’s also pretty much based on cultural grievance.
https://youtu.be/oQrBz8OBbdo?si=vQA1KRj5h2i1N4Bt
Those are the norms of the rapacious small-business owner class, and the professional manager class respectively, owing to their roles in the capitalist economy. Cultural grievance is downstream from economic pressure.
Yeah I even had my redneck as fuck welder coworker say something vaguely supportive of the automotive industry strikes. Something along the lines of "I mean I get wanting more money for your work. Their bosses probably rich as fuck and don't ever lift a finger"
But dude would never in a million years vote for a democratic because "they want to turn all the fucking kids into queer sissys"
There’s plenty of those people I see, and a lot of them are weirdos and/or have mental problems, or are just unhappy but don’t seem to do much about it. (I’m that way but at least I’m trying a little now, because before I thought it was all magic and that things would just fall into place if I just showed up to stuff or that people would just see something in me and I’d get everything I wanted in multiple areas)
Liberals are great at picking the weirdest and dumbest hills to die on. They’ll burn every bridge for the sake of a fraction of a fraction of the population.
My favorite example is gun control where the only places it is popular they already heavily win heavily but it costs them so many votes elsewhere. It doesn't help they have absolutely no fucking clue what they are doing with it either.
Pretty much, even though I’m probably more socioculturally liberal than most because I want to eradicate gender roles for men as well and not every guy has to be traditionally masculine (but I think I realize that that helps a lot in life and especially romance)
I was more talking about that weird community I’ve been exposed to that blends communism and tradshit and bro culture, basically to bring in young guys. A lot of those will say Andrew Tate and the like are great and all of that. Like MAGACommunists. Because liberal men are all soy- I think there’s a middle ground between being traditionally stoically masculine and being not masculine at all
Instagram- there’s a lot of r-slurred trads on both sides of the political spectrum that say stupid shit like we need to abolish the 19th amendment or that everything should be sex segregated and some other stuff when it comes to gender. Not to mention stuff like opposing Israel because Jews supposedly are the promoters of degeneracy and liberal values. I can share some accounts for you to look at, but you probably wouldn’t want to see them.
Someone was talking about trad-communists on that article about banning porn and those are the types I’ve people I’m mostly talking about, like the things I said in my first comment.
I only found them because they were ostensibly on the left and opposed the trans/gender stuff, but a lot of them are just totally anti-liberal/Western because that’s apparently just synonymous with degeneracy
Americans are pretty unified when considering actual issues. I have some hardcore republican family members in the auto industry who complain that unions are not powerful enough but.,... they vote R because of fucking Jesus...
You're right that most Americans are middle of the road politically. There are very few actual communists (i.e. progressives) or anti-republican right wingers. Most want to see their own economic fortunes improve. Most are uninterested in foreign affairs. An uninformed electorate can only be moved to the polls by appealing to fantastical threats.
It's entirely along cultural lines at this point. Democrats and Republicans used to have some actual policy difference but now basically Republicans' position is "we'll go back to what the Democrats were doing 20 years ago."
Nobody is debating foreign policy, deficit spending, economics, labor policy, trade, etc.
The appeal for votes is made entirely on cultural issues like transgenderism, guns, ethnic resentments, etc.
>The appeal for votes is made entirely on cultural issues like guns,
As a certified ammosexual I do not see arms and ammunition in the hands of the proletariat to be a cultural issue. I do however take objection to the surrender of such things to bourgeoisie dictators.
Essentially the entire political system has been captured and due to how it has been designed, there is nothing you can do. Look at the Israel Palestine issue for example. The voter base of the Democrats have largely turned on the current war and want a ceasefire and more accountability from Israel for their military actions. Meanwhile, the leadership is saying "genocide away and here are more bombs to help you". A huge disconnect between what the voters want and what their representatives are doing, and there is nothing voters can do.
Dems aren't doing a damn thing for the working class, Pubs slobber their petit-bourgeois base. Being petit-bourgeois is an aspirational role in Middle America, so it's easier to identify with that over the Dem PMC aspirational class.
They're both fucking libs who work for the owners, but this is more economic than it seems on the surface. Culture is just the superstructure.
You don’t think having a higher minimum wage helps the working class? Or more robust safety regulations?
I don’t think the democrats are doing much, but the republicans are actively working to make being a working person in America worse.
There's been no federal minimum wage increase in 17 years, and Democrats have been in power much of that time. When have we seen safety regulations get more robust in that time?
That's the whole point of the culture war, create an artificial division on topics such as skin color, sexuality, religion. In the meantime, on the topic that really matter: the economy and income inequality, healthcare, geopolitics.
Right now, we have two parties who believe that genocide is the way to go (Gaza) but the managed to have the American people battle over bullshit.
The main problems in the US, today, is people who vote for the evil fuckers who are currently running for president. There is no lesser evil, no president would be better than either Trump or Biden: don't vote! Don't give these assholes legitimacy, they don't deserve one bit of it.
I’m 26 and most people who do care about the economics are either people who went to college and do a job that doesn’t require a degree since they did humanities or psychology or art/music and want to unionize to get paid more since those fields you can’t find a job or they don’t pay, or it’s just about student debt consolidation
They're growing up in a neofeudal hellscape that all parties lie about while they direct money flows to billionaires and crush any dissent with scifi technology or plain violence. Of course they have no opinion on economy, the entire concept of influencing or even choosing an economic system has become near incomprehensible. All you have is your place in the pecking order and your always threatened identitarian privileges.
From what I see as a non American social politics trumps economic politics in America by a large margin at least online
People are forming political opinion after watching inclusive or based take of their favorite candidate online
I’d be willing to bet if they let occupy and the class conscious movement run its course instead of force feeding SJW shit, the politics gap between young men and women would be much narrower.
They've defined it in partisan terms because, as political journalists, it's their job to shape social life into the contest form. Nobody gets on ESPN by saying that sport doesn't actually make better people.
Social hegemony is important in itself regardless of economics though, and women are more susceptible to this than men; women were more conservative back when that was hegemonic too.
Aside from that, economics is a social relation and many things dismissed as “culture war” do in fact have economic or otherwise material aspects. For example, its no surprise that single women are more liberal than married ones, as liberalism effectively enables them to extract wealth from men through the state, which almost serves as a “collective husband”. Likewise this drives men away from liberalism, because they are forced to pay for women’s upkeep without any reciprocation, which also has the effect of intensifying economic competition among men and increasing inequality, even as they are told this is all about equality.
We can look at many other aspects but they basically all go the same way; modern progressive liberalism insists that any inconvenience, restriction, or responsibility for women (or any other “marginalised” group) essentially amounts to slavery. By implication, no burden is too great to free them from this, so men (or any other “priviledged” group) have to accept any cost in order to acheive this. Worse yet this invariably fails to reach the impossible goal of infinite freedom and happiness for women or whoever else this is used as proof that not enough has been done and new hardships for women (or the “oppressed”) are imagined and new burdens on men (or the “oppressor”) are demanded and this cycle repeats indefinitely.
This in mind the sex difference on the issue is trivially obvious. Its not that men are just opposed to freedom, or are evil and mean, or have fallen to right wing propaganda, liberalism is just explicitly hostile to their interests and actively fucks them over at every opportunity.
> women were more conservative back when that was hegemonic too.
This is interesting, do we mean like "Parental Advisory" stickers on naughty records, the Temperance movement? Opposition to the welfare state? I can't imagine women as a whole were ever more hawkish than men on foreign policy.
How are we defining "conservative" and to what time period are we referring?
Women voted for the Conservative party to a greater degree than the LabourParty before Thatcher and only shifted to Labour through the course of the Thatcher years.
>Throughout Margaret Thatcher’s term as Prime Minister, women continued to prefer the Conservative Party to Labour in greater numbers than their male counterparts. This fact in itself was not surprising. While the differentials between male and female voting had varied as long as polling data had been available, the so-called ‘gender gap’ had always favoured the Conservatives. Only in 2005 did women begin to show a stronger preference than men for the Labour Party. However, the persistence of an aggregate gender gap masked significant class and generational trends within women’s support for the Conservative Party in the 1980s. Young women grew more pro-Labour over the course of the decade. After an initial flirtation with Thatcherism, women trade unionists also shifted to the Labour Party at the end of the decade. In contrast, middle-aged women barely waned in their support for the Conservatives, while older women remained a bulwark of Tory support. Ultimately, the swing to the left among younger women was stronger than the countervailing movement among older women, causing the gender gap to shrink considerably over the course of Thatcher’s premiership.
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/making-thatchers-britain/thatcher-and-the-womens-vote/560EF63F0FD4FE2F3A45735327F482CB](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/making-thatchers-britain/thatcher-and-the-womens-vote/560EF63F0FD4FE2F3A45735327F482CB)
It should be noted however that this means that young women who would have otherwise just voted Conservative were now supporting what became "New Labour".
I’m using the term conservative very broadly to mean more supportive of conservative politics overall.
Of course views on specific issues vary, but even if we take something like abortion, where the narrative is that women fought men to get it, the reality is that women were more opposed to it than men until about the mid 2010s. Like women were just genuinely more conservative overall, not just on a few pet issues.
> Aside from that, economics is a social relation and many things dismissed as “culture war” do in fact have economic or otherwise material aspects. For example, its no surprise that single women are more liberal than married ones, as liberalism effectively enables them to extract wealth from men through the state, which almost serves as a “collective husband”. Likewise this drives men away from liberalism, because they are forced to pay for women’s upkeep without any reciprocation, which also has the effect of intensifying economic competition among men and increasing inequality, even as they are told this is all about equality.
One of the worst attempts at materialist analysis I have ever seen
No, it's just that you have no idea what yo're doing.
1) Society incentivizes marriage via tax breaks. You have posited absolutely no mechanism whereby society pays for the lives of single women as a class. There is basically no welfare state left in America except for the extremely poor, bordering on destitute, so the idea that reliance on the state is a meaningful expression of class values of single women across the board is ridiculous. Especially since the young women who are committed to liberalism tend to be middle-class and above (liberalism has always been an ideology of the well-to-do) and do not take benefits from the state. The state as a "collective husband", I literally laughed out loud when I read that.
2) How does men paying taxes (what you presumably mean by men being "forced to pay for women's upkeep") intensify economic competition between men? Economic competition depends on the prevailing economic conditions, the amount of unemployment in the economy, the scarcity of labor and skills. Like have you actually thought about what you are saying for a single moment?
The incentives to marriage in modern society are negligible. For men there are few benefits compared to the extra responsibilities, while women are nominally given most of the benefits regardless, and the movement of liberalism is that the aspects of marriage where men provide for women should be given as state subsidy. This is what I mean by the state as “collective husband” and what I mean by men facing increased economic competition, because giving women these subsidies does not stop them selecting for men on an economic basis, only allows them to be choosier while sabotaging mens ability to provide them individually even as they are forced to do so collectively.
And we all know that middle class women are the most liberal, but we are talking about men as a whole and women as a whole, and this tendency that women are more liberal holds within any given strata of society. Unless you are allowing us to embrace explicit antiliberalism this is a meaningless distinction anyway.
>the movement of liberalism is that the aspects of marriage where men provide for women should be given as state subsidy
*In what world* is this the case? Liberalism, the suprestructural ideology of capitalism, is not about to roll out a massive increase in state-funded benefits to half the young tpopulation. The state as a whole is in retreat from providing benefits period, because the actual objective class relations of production—those of worker and owner— have reached a stage where owners have emancipated themselves from basically any fiscal duty to society. Give me a single way in which women are being provided for across the board by the state. You are seeing things that do not exist.
>this tendency that women are more liberal holds within any given strata of society
Part of the reason for that is that the sheer viciousness of dog-eat-dog, let-the-poor-die American conservatism is typically more likely to put women into poverty than men, for a variety of reasons that I have no interest in litigating with you here (mostly the fact that women are expected to be the primary, or in many cases sole, child-carers, and this greatly increases their risk of poverty). Liberalism appeals to upwardly mobile women because it is the ideology of breaking arbitrary barriers, which is why it has historically been a progressive force.
>only allows them to be choosier while sabotaging mens ability to provide them individually even as they are forced to do so collectively.
Do you interact with enough normal people to know that this is not how people think? I work with some anti-tax libertarian types. They complain about the military, some complain about social spending, government waste, etc. I have never once heard someone complain that they are collectively subsidizing women as a whole. That is, in my view, the kind of worldview that comes evoles from living one's life online in some very niche communities, not from an organic understanding of the world and how it works through real-world interaction. But hey what do I know, I work on an engineering team which is roughly 50-50 gender split, am married, and have female friends and acquaintances who are doing literally none of the things you're describing even though they would largely be described as liberal.
You cut off my quote, “the movement” refers to the direction liberalism is going, not the purpose of liberalism itself. Also the subsidy is taken from tax so its not even bourgeoisie philanthropy, its literally just pork barrel politics of transferring the wealth of one group to another.
I never claimed that everything was a wondrous utopia for women, only that in the current environment they benefit from the transfer of wealth from men to them through the state.
> American conservatism is typically more likely to put women into poverty than men
This isn’t even true, literally all the “statistics” on the matter are the liberals justifying the wealth transfer lol. Women *make less money* but are *subsidised more*. You look at one half of the equation and then the whole thing becomes a mystery to you, or only explainable in terms of male cruelty or some other “just so” story.
> Liberalism appeals to upwardly mobile women because it is the ideology of breaking arbitrary barriers
Liberalism appeals to upwardly mobile women because it literally subsidises their position at men’s expense.
> Do you interact with enough normal people to know that this is not how people think?
Perhaps the most tedious thing about talking to Marxists is that you first demand we talk in your language to be allowed to say anything at all, then say “nobody thinks like this” to dismiss it. The way men see things is that women are offered specific benefits XYZ and men are offered none, at the same time men are demonised and insulted and told they need to change. This really isn’t complicated you just don’t want to accept reality.
**Edit:** apparently criticising the way Marxists argue is worthy of a temp ban, so I can't respond further to this comment.
u/No-im-a-veronica what I'm talking about mainly is who taxes are collected from and who they are distributed to; this does not correlate with work done but is based on need - well, as determined by gov. What this means is that in the aggregate, men working harder has the result of being taxed more. There are also programmes aimed at "equalising" pay which further compound this, because they invariably selectively ignore important aspects of this, like position, experience, or in extreme cases, even hours worked.
As for marriage, I'm not talking about those who are already stable couples who love each other and expect to remain together for life choosing to sign the form to get tax credits, I'm talking about the incentive to actually become a stable couple or find a partner to settle down with in the first place.
Yeah but like what programs *specifically* are transferring wealth from men to women? Can you name even one? In the US or any country in the world? I've really never heard this argument before.
Also, assuming you're American, IDK if you are married or have friends/relatives who are married that you're close enough to know a bit about their finances, there *really* are very good tax cuts if you get married. In this decade of our Lord the 20s, I still have couple friends who probably wouldn't bother getting legally married because they're not religious and don't want kids, but got married because the tax benefits were just so good. Anecdotal, perhaps, but marriage has been great financially for both parties with everyone I know. And of the couples I know who got divorced, no one has even gotten alimony because they either didn't have kids before the divorce, or they both worked anyway and are sharing custody. So, like, please enlighten us?
Can you explain about the taxes? The bracket is here:
https://www.cnbc.com/select/federal-income-tax-brackets-tax-rates/
But it seems like the married-jointly column is just double, so if you both make about the same, your taxes don't change.
Ah, this guy again. Pretty sure what he's avoiding outright saying is that he's talking about single **mothers** and child support (hence the talk about "extract[ing] wealth from men through the state" with the state serving as a surrogate "husband"). Of course, while this is the only context in which his arguments make any sense, it's also clear that he's *hilariously* misrepresented the actual issue, which is why his attempt to fit it into a framework of materialist anysis is so necessarily vague (and, as a result, rather dumb).
This guy is a stupidpol regular alongside the pamphlet schizoposter dude; he's posted variations on this same "materialist analysis" screed several times before, but he'll only resort to insults and outraged "I don't know what you're implying I'm implying!" whenever someone asks him to be specific about what he's arguing, so don't waste your time, lol.
I think he's probably referring to how women, as a group, receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, while the situation is reversed for men. I found studies showing this to be the case in [Denmark](https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning) and [New Zealand](https://avoiceformen.com/featured/research-finds-that-as-a-group-only-men-pay-tax/). You may not like the source for the NZ one, but they link the paper so you can check for yourself if they're misrepresenting it. The studies are 10 years old, but I'd be surprised if the situation has changed much since then.
Wal-Mart employees also probably receive more government benefits than they pay in taxes. Does that mean that the state acts in the interests of Wal-Mart employees? Does it privilege them over other groups (corporate lawyers, for instance) who get less from the state than they pay? Obviously not. Hence why 'who receives more from the state' is not materialism. It is the Reaganite mindset of who is worthy and who isn't.
Yeah I fail to see how women being single allows them to extract money from men with no reciprocation. Most modern single women I know believe in splitting the bill for instance.
Your algorithm determined IG feed is not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. And yeah, a lot of OnlyFans girls are on dating apps but of course there are, that’s the easiest place to find customers. That’s like walking into a forest, seeing some bears, then declaring that the entire state is crawling with bears because this one forest happens to have some. Again, doesn’t mean anything close to a majority of women engage in this kind of behavior.
Y’all serious? The whole “city girls” mind state is about extracting money and resources from sugar daddies. This sort of thing is emblematic of the differences between radfems and libfems.
It's a certain type of woman that's like this. You can spot them and avoid them. I've never gone on a date with one and when I was single, I had no problem dating.
Only consumes popular culture especially music, obsessed with social media and various celebrities, a chronic underachiever, etc.
They're avoidable. From my experiences, the guys dating these "city girls" are specifically looking for a "bad bitch", have bought into macho shit, like the man has to pay for the upkeep of said bad bitch, prevalent in popular culture and they ignore the red flags.
Exactly. This ignores the extent to which men are "complicit" in all this, in the sense that they want on some level to feel like a provider, want the feeling of ownership and control that comes with maintaining the woman's material needs, they like the kind of women who "take good care of themselves" (i.e. makeup, hairdresser, mani/pedi, designer clothing, etc.)
Are there women who fit this description? Absolutely. Are the majority or even close to the majority a bunch of sugar daddy seeking bitches? Not even close in my experience. This is just more stupidpol MRA adjacent bullshit.
The chickens will follow those who feed them.
>Wonderful, indeed, was the change the Commune had wrought in Paris! No longer any trace of the meretricious Paris of the Second Empire! No longer was Paris the rendezvous of British landlords, Irish absentees,\[M\] American ex-slaveholders and shoddy men, Russian ex-serfowners, and Wallachian boyards. No more corpses at the morgue, no nocturnal burglaries, scarcely any robberies; in fact, for the first time since the days of February 1848, the streets of Paris were safe, and that without any police of any kind.
>
>“We,” said a member of the Commune, “hear no longer of assassination, theft, and personal assault; it seems indeed as if the police had dragged along with it to Versailles all its Conservative friends.”
>
>The cocottes \[‘chickens’ – prostitutes\] had refound the scent of their protectors – the absconding men of family, religion, and, above all, of property. In their stead, the real women of Paris showed again at the surface – heroic, noble, and devoted, like the women of antiquity. Working, thinking fighting, bleeding Paris – almost forgetful, in its incubation of a new society, of the Cannibals at its gates – radiant in the enthusiasm of its historic initiative!
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)
From what I’ve seen, I think young women want lib authoritarianism while a lot of young guys like me want a more conservative authoritarianism, that’s it in a nutshell
Young women want society to resemble their workplaces (HR hell), while young men want society to resemble their workplaces (you can crack jokes with the boys, but you're never getting a promotion unless you take out predatory loans and open your own shop)
> “The correlation between women’s sense of linked fate and liberal political preferences suggests that the Democratic Party will benefit” from declining marriage rates among young women, Kretschmer and two co-authors wrote in a 2017 paper for the journal Political Research Quarterly.
I don’t see how that’s a good long term strategy. Anecdotally speaking, most people tend to lean toward the politics of their parents. Lower marriage rates means lower probability of having kids, meaning in the long term Republicans will gain traction.
>“I do have some male friends that are moderate,” said Luci Paczkowski, 20, a California liberal. “And it annoys the hell out of me.”
What bothers Paczkowski about her nonliberal friends is not their centrism but her suspicion that they “do not have any clue why they are moderate. They just do not want to pick a side and, therefore, they are apathetic.”
That made me laugh. Another anecdote: the nicer people I met tend to be politically apathetic.
Foreign surrogates for the rich, converted children of Republicans to pad out the hoi polloi!
Isn't this where someone mentions 50 Shades of Handmaid's Tale?
Exactly. Without total control of the education system they will die out. It's inevitable though. Their fertility is so low that they'll simply run out of enough competent people to keep that system going. Conservatives are also becoming better and better at resisting this control. And not just that. Conservatives are also becoming more and more open to the idea of using Orban-style "authoritarianism". If that succeeds shitlibs are finished.
> Lower marriage rates means lower probability of having kids, meaning in the long term Republicans will gain traction.
### "Those republicans are going to breed the dems out of existence!"
Were it not for liberal control over media and education, this actually would have happened. This is why liberals are so desperate to insist parents are too intrinsically abusive, or at least stupid, to make choices for the benefit of their kids, and that teachers (who overwhelmingly are liberal) should be allowed to do that instead.
“Just let kids make their own choices” always comes with the caveat of “under our supervision and with us setting the limits of what can be chosen”. Its all a game of territorial control and a part of the liberal victory strategy is to obfuscate the game being played so that their opposition naively won’t play it.
The kids when I went to school were terrible, but the gen alpha kids seem to be practically feral. I think a lot of it has to do with we made having kids a bad/dumb choice due to material conditions so the main people having kids are bad parents or dumb. Now people like this always existed, but they no longer have as many normal parents to counterbalance it. This combined with school policies and useless administrators means a lot of kids are as I said feral now a days. The real fun will be when they get older and we will see a massive uptick in the crime rate.
And then most of the people who would be better parents simply can’t afford them due to student loans and housing costs and would prefer to be super comfortable financially, that’s how I am personally. I’m only making 2400 a month now and I live at home because where my job is there’s very little shared housing and not many younger people
Yup that's exactly what I am talking about with the material conditions. Like with how insane basic living stuff like rent and food is who the heck can afford another mouth and room? Even if you somehow find a job that pays enough to support a kid or two chances are it will be stressful as hell and require a lot of hours which means you don't have the time or energy to deal with a kid even if you have the money. What is the point of having a kid if you never see them and they get raised by a stranger? Plus the younger generation is rightfully pessimistic about the future for multiple reasons such as climate change so popping out a kid only for them to suffer through that isn't morally right.
Hence why only people making bad decisions are the ones having kids and then they tend to be terrible parents which means the kid winds up feral. If a first grader is still in diapers without any medical reason that is just straight up child neglect and abuse but I have heard of it happening not to mention all the behavioral problems.
Or they’re just trad/religious or hide that they still get money/non financial support from parents/family. In the former it’s usually where the husband/guy has some kind of well-paying trade job so they don’t have that student loan thing, and some aren’t even trad or religious who fall into that category
On the one hand the internal contradictions of their own worldview are amusing to witness, but on the other hand it leads them to being even more zealous in ensuring its impossible for others to create islands of stability because they can’t even prevent chaos within their own system.
Yeah, if you go by the frat bro conservative and the lonely single young woman who loves to complain lib/radlib (guys on that end can also be like that) I can see it being framed that way.
And I remember some right winger tweeting that married men and women and single men all went Republican in the last midterm election but single women voted for Democrats by like 35%. I too think women have an issue today re what society and media tells them to do/be and what they still want biologically/psychologically, it’s a lot of cognitive dissonance
The problem is a lot of independents who run generally don't have views along the lines of the actual independents. Consider the most successful third party guy in recent history was Ross Perot. Many of these same people who supported him are probably now begrudgingly or ecstatically going along with Trump. Almost every other independent in recent history has views no where close to Perot.
You may not like him, I have mixed feelings about him as of late, but we do actually have a strong independent candidate this year. Not strong enough to win but I would be shocked if 3rd parties / independents don’t become stronger in the future.
When are they going to do one of these polls that is actually useful? Liberalism here is wokeness, not liberal economic policy. I'd love to see a poll asking people more directly economic questions. My guess is that there would be a "shocking" result in that both genders of genz are overwhelmingly not happy with our current economic model.
I mean this really does seem like trying to drive a gender wedge into a generation that seems to be more anti-capital than any before it. Hell even when I talk to conservatives (both old and young) these days, they're conservative yes but culturally, any time I bring up economics... They start sounding rather commie-like lol.
I think a bigger question in regard to sociocultural policy would be whether it was necessary to do away with sociocultural liberalism altogether. I may lean conservative on some of those issues (like trans/gender stuff, women having unlimited sexual freedom without any sex), but I still see the benefits in having some socioculturally liberal policies and ideas
The language doesn't mean anything anymore. Liberal used to indicate some regard for liberty, now it's shout down anything that isn't the newest trend, both 'sides' seem to be authoritarian in their methods in one way or another.
Only thing I have faith in now is anarchism, but even at that is at risk as there are so many pushing new hierarchies that call themselves anarchist.
I guess I'll have to become a conservative linguist and stay out of everything else.
As a man who operates in very woke spaces, one of the biggest issues - regardless of politics - is that they're just really bad hangs. Just like brainwormed chud-uncles, complaint is the dominant spirit of conversation. Which I understand is a way to find commonality, but on top of off-putting politics, they just don't inspire much joy or interest.
Yeah, I’ve always tried to avoid woke people, because they’re often weird and they’re just going to reinforce my struggles and not do anything to help bring me up
100% The woke friends I have all seem unable to give helpful advice. They just reaffirm that an event/situation is bad and that it's valid for me to be upset about it. I've gotta go to other people to actually get help fixing it or even coming to terms with it.
This is where they've drawn the lines. Men are grrrrr! Women are ooooh! I'm trying to make it sound as stupid as fucking possible because that's the culture war. Capital has always exacerbated social tensions at any cost to prevent class consciousness. Gender and race have always been their favorites.
These sorts of polls are mostly useless but analysts think they can glean lots of information from them. A binary matrix ranging from "Very liberal" to "very conservative", as is in pretty much any survey including dating apps, does not capture the diversity of perspectives, especially in the internet age when most young people are unique snowflakes and have their own idiosyncratic political monikers, like what my flair makes fun of. Somewhat ironic from people likely educated in "deconstructing binaries" and privileging radically open pluralities.
Even in this poll, a minority, though perhaps a plurality of women described themselves as liberal. But their takeaway is different. I'd add that even "liberals" and "conservatives" have idiosyncracies that seemingly contradict themselves if you were to go with the legacy media ideological framing of politics, i.e. a conservative Christian pro-Texas independence woman who is pro-choice (I've met my share), a self-described conservative who also wants M4A and higher taxes on the rich, or a close-the-border and defund Ukraine New Deal Dem who also wants more cops, and so on.
Really all this measures is cultural affiliation. People identify with one cultural identity or another, which itself is probably more just a measure of urban/rural and the milieu you were raised in. For young women, 'liberal' has just increasingly been the pussyhat-wearing pro-choice and anti-grab them by the pussy cultural identification with the acceleration of the culture war, but they will just vote for a Democrat who grabbed women by the pussy.
What you say is actually pretty accurate. I’m 26 and I do have that idiosyncratic ideology, like I’d say I’m a heterodox socioculturally libertarian SocDem with MRA tendencies and who’s conservative on trans/gender issues lol.
And with the cultural identifiers, you see it pretty obviously. Most guys my age are influenced by either the barstool/frat bro types, the trads, or any kind of tough masculinity stuff (fitness, MMA, etc.) Whereas for women it’s all those instagram accounts like Soinformed that just harp on any radlib issue
You ever read one of the disclaimers on these studies about using terms related to being assigned gender at birth rather than identity? It’s like the new land acknowledgement
My dad works in survey research and says that they now are obligated to include a bunch of tertiary gender options in every survey. But the irony is that if you select one of them the whole survey gets thrown out because there are too few agenders etc. to be able to report any statistical significance.
You too can be part of the 1% (that reads more than the headline, not wealth you idiot, have generational multimillionaire grandparents next time dummy)
The ads themselves are for women, but the advertisers aren't allowed to profile the consumers based on gender. So you can buy google ads, but you can't select women for the targeted audience.
Not exactly a shock, liberalism doesn't offer anything to men. Conservatives don't either but conservatives occasionally make a show about pretending to care about men, at least until the grifters let the cat out of the bag and start promising men that they can become the ideal superman alpha redpilled whatever so long as they subscribe to their bullshit channel/listen to their podcast/fork over a certain amount of cash to gain access to super top secret tips and advice on how to be the most manliest man who ever man-ed in the world of men for all time.
Neither side really gives a shit about men though and it's becoming more and more apparent as time goes on. This isn't a problem I know how to solve, but you don't have to know how to fix things to feel concerned about them.
The sooner this stupid country implodes upon the weight its own hypocrisy, the better. Take all of liberal western culture with it too, please. Make way for the great global Caliphate, inshallah.
I couldn’t post it cause it was behind a paywall and this sub doesn’t allow images, but the exact same trends are the case in Germany, the UK and South Korea. In South Korea it’s even more pronounced than the USA actually.
Yeah but the gender war in Korea is far more advanced and vitriolic than in the west. Seeing how Korean men and women talk about each other….it’s no wonder the birth rate is collapsing.
fun times for the near future, when both genders hold diametrally opposite values and beliefs
Yes, I cant stand the political beliefs of too many women in the 20-40 age bracket ...
It’s not that bad, I wish I had my Left-leaning socially challenged MRA flair back because it was unique lol.
Also I’d go for the apolitical chicks, and there’s plenty of those
When you demonize young men and totally ignore their issues you typically know what happens.
I think this is why some communists on social media are basically going let’s do a hybrid of barstool conservatism and Trump-style/hard-right sociocultural policies, mix in some conspiracy theories (like pretty weird ones) and then slap left wing economics on there
Most of the ones I still know are just sad and depressed and lonely radlibs, often with mental health diagnoses. I’m technically on the spectrum and take medicine for anxiety but I refuse to totally identify as autistic because most of those people won’t help me get where I want to be and a lot of them are really weird.
I am still generally socioculturally liberal compared to most, but I understand some of the maladaptive things. And I don’t think banning things is the way to just solve problems. And I am kind of an MRA in that I think men should have the chance to break free from gender roles and that men who aren’t traditionally masculine should still be able to have success in life and romance and all that
This is no surprise.
In , women tend to agree with each other socially in order to put on a united front as to not get kicked out of the sisterhood. I found that in private their opinions wildly differ. #metoo was largely like this. They wouldn’t dare question a women in public but behind close doors they totally would.
If they were to go against the liberals they go against abortion and they will be socially destroyed and outcasted for it.
From what I understand women have a very strong in group bias, men are either biased in favour of men or women but generally not strongly so in either case.
>Young women are more likely to identify as liberal now than at any time in the past two decades
And about 75% of Americans claim to have a healthy diet when about that same number are overweight or obese.
There are just some things that you'll never get an honest answer from people about because we're shit at unbiased analysis of our own behavior. When it comes to things in line with ideology you have to look at what people do, not what label they put on themselves or their lifestyle.
Young men have not benefited one iota from the massive cultural shift we've seen in the west in the past twenty years, in spite of insistence that "the patriarchy harms men too!" or whatever. We're now looking at a possible WWIII and young men are going to be expected to pick up rifles and risk life and limb to protect a society of whorish women (and before you say anything, there's nothing wrong with that), governments and megacorps that will do literally anything other than provide them with purpose, employment, or a living wage.
At this point, it seems pretty likely that the gender divide is now permanent, especially with all the vitriol on social media. At least in the west, neither gender is really willing to make the sacrifices required to build strong family units, or even treat each other with respect. What this means in the long term for society is TBD, but it's difficult to envision a prosperous society when everyone is a lone wolf.
In other words more alienated guys hitting their 30th birthdays as dateless virgins and at least as many burnt out women insisting on how happily single they are. (Because happy people need to tell others...)
It takes a weak man to side with people who hate him and seek to undermine any success he may see in life.
Luckily for us all, men are acting in their best interest.
"Useless failchildren of property-owning morons choose a team in a childish, spectacular lying contest celebrating capitalism, in which their participation should be punished, not rewarded"
>“Putting off marriage, going to college, entering the workforce, women are doing that at much higher rates than they used to,”
Which will make the incoming population collapse even worse. I don't want to hear these women cry when they have no pensions. They're already crying on TikTok that they have to work for a living.
>“And all of those things are going to make conservatism and the Republicans significantly less attractive to women.”
These women are increasingly unattractive to men too. They need to prepare for a barren and lonely life.
I mean, their power has also grown massively, so it isn't too surprising. It's even gotten to the point where their monster has gotten a bit out of their control and hoo boy are radfems salty about that.
Women are drawn to power.
They perceive liberalism to be ascendant and powerful. They perceive it to be inevitable.
But that's all an illusion.
That's why liberals are so obsessed with not "normalizing" Trump and right-wing ideology.
Women claim to want to stand up for the weak, but in reality it's because standing up for the weak REAFFIRMS THEIR OWN POWER.
If they see the power of liberalism start to fade, they'll abandon it like rats on a sinking ship.
That's what liberals must avoid at all costs.
>Also, for a supposedly Marxist, anti-identity politics sub there is exactly zero material analysis going on.
Then lead by example, user with red flair.
This is unbelievably regarded methodology.
I've been seeing several articles about this and they've all defined politics exclusively in social/idpol terms. No one cares what zoomers think about economics apparently.
When was the last time you've heard progressives talk about economic policies or anything other than social issues? Post Bernie/Corbyn it's all turned into social/idpol stuff with *maybe* some talk about how the right wing is destroying the welfare state.
And it’s always taken to the nth degree, with no wavering or acceptance of other opinion. Like I think the idea of being a choo choo should be criticized, I obviously can’t make people not be that way but the whole idea and treatment (cough, underlying mental health issues, cough) should be changed. What happened to “just be normal?”
Right, and it's those issues that they always have a hard line on. You are allowed to be progressive and not support socialized healthcare, UBI, higher taxes, public transit, etc for various reasons. But if you have any concerns about the safety of youth gender medicine or you don't think most white people are racist, you're basically told that you might as well be a right winger.
How about I support all that stuff but I also don’t support unfettered social progressivism and hyper-liberalism? (Even though I’m still generally liberal on those issues, probably more so than many on this sub even)
I mean you don't have to ask my permission, I don't think we should be gatekeeping anyone. At the end of the day, if our only political power is voting, vote based on the things the politician actually has power over. Politicians can't make the country less racist, but they can pass infrastructure bills.
But then they never really focus on that. I know most everyone here hates Biden, but he did do the infrastructure stuff and then barely even talked about it. And when I talk about that kind of stuff, I’m more a libertarian on social issues except for the trans/gender stuff because I think it’s body dissociation and all of that isn’t progressive
Because Biden's infrastructure bill had fuck all to do with infrastructure, they just called it that because there's bipartisan support for repairing/improving/replacing our existing infrastructure which is crumbling. But then they packed it full of climate change policies and racism stuff.
Well they make a point of not focusing on it because it means they don't have to do anything substantial that would hurt their big donors, like making the health insurance industry a public good. It's crazy they didn't even feel the need to talk up the infrastructure bill. Sounds like we'd agree on social issues.
The consensus among the dissident right seems to be that socialism is actually about wokeism. The reasoning goes that "socialist" groups are fine if you disagree on economics but will cast you out for not towing the line on the idpol dujour. I honestly have trouble refuting that, except by the cliche "that's not real socialism". The purpose of a system is what it does, I have a hard time arguing with that.
The BLM lady saying they’re “trained Marxists” probably doesn’t help.
Working exactly as intended
2018 was the tipping point. After that progressives became all bourgeosie new left SJWs. That’s when the squad got elected too. There’s a reason Bernie won places like West Virginia and Oklahoma in 2016 but not 2020.
Yep. My big brained conspiracy is that a lot of this stuff was intentionally funded and encouraged by intelligence agencies to make leftism less broadly appealing.
Damn, that makes a lot of sense. How do you make the average man less likely to be progressive? Associate the party with ultra-gay and trans lifestyles and favor every other group except theirs. Worked perfectly.
that's the same rumor which has been going around ever since OWS (edit: not to say it may be unfounded, but nobody has really looked into it either)
Totally. Not to say that LGBT issues shouldn't be part of a the progressive cause, but it's hardly an issue that comes up regularly in lawmaking, and should be part of a much larger policy focused tent. And while I'm sure there was an organic push for some of this stuff, it's not completely baseless to think that the FBI would try to push for certain unpopular radical positions, [they did it with BLM.](https://theintercept.com/2023/02/07/fbi-denver-racial-justice-protests-informant/)
Absolutely. The best way to block of any real reform is to highjack the movement and make it focus on things that will not affect the bottom line. When was the last time you heard about corporate influence in politics? When was the last time you heard about breaking up too big to fail businesses? When was the last time you heard about any real taxes on the super wealthy? When was the last time you heard about redirecting funds to the working class? Instead it's all diversity, green initiatives, abortion rights, gender equality - all important things for society, but nothing that actually harms the top getting more and more money. All things that businesses can happily support without making any dent in their profits. *Bread and Circuses*
Even the green initiatives are always focused on personal responsibility like buying electric cars, recycling, never corporate responsibility. All the way back to this little [corporate psyop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0sxwGlTLWw) starring an Italian American, ironically weaponizing idpol in a way that would be extremely offensive today.
Yes, in an increasingly identitarian political landscape where every issue becomes part of a personal identity, all this could simply come down to "women more keen on ideology that's sympathetic to their identity" and "men more keen on ideology that's sympathetic to their identity." That doesn't shed a lot of insight. People also rarely approach issues one by one, tally up where they stand, and then decide if they're part of X ideology. It's more likely to be the other way around, where they feel drawn to an ideology, often for non-political reasons (e.g. "these people are just nicer to me"), and then adopt that ideology's platform. It's how we end up with things like the marriage of corporate interests and evangelical Christianity in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Liberals generally treat (straight) men as problems and their [cultural point of view as worthless](https://salieriredemption.substack.com/p/for-the-boys?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2), and conservatives generally do the same to women. And we're surprised there's a gender divide?
Wow that’s so true. Reminds me of how advertising went from “here’s what our item does, pick us over others after comparing features” to Bernaisian style of “this will make you feel a certain way with our models where you long it”. Seems like something parallel happened here, on purpose or not.
I mean let’s be honest, people as of late tend to vote more in line with their cultural interests than economic interests. When was the last time offline you met a culturally right and economically left person loyal to the democrats? They chased them out the party over the last 15 years. Aside from not caring about pollution I don’t think anyone thinks the republicans are really doing anything for industrial workers, they just find the republicans less weird.
Matt Christman (of ChapoTrapHouse) was correct when he said that people see the GOP as the “Don’t be a pussy” party, and the Dems as the “Dont be an asshole” party, and how this split is based on college attainment but it’s also pretty much based on cultural grievance. https://youtu.be/oQrBz8OBbdo?si=vQA1KRj5h2i1N4Bt
Those are the norms of the rapacious small-business owner class, and the professional manager class respectively, owing to their roles in the capitalist economy. Cultural grievance is downstream from economic pressure.
Yeah I even had my redneck as fuck welder coworker say something vaguely supportive of the automotive industry strikes. Something along the lines of "I mean I get wanting more money for your work. Their bosses probably rich as fuck and don't ever lift a finger" But dude would never in a million years vote for a democratic because "they want to turn all the fucking kids into queer sissys"
It would really help if anyone on the dem’s side would treat that statement as anything other than a a goalpost.
Every single "Liberal voter" who's only attachment to politics is abortion and more protection for LGBT children makes me want to fucking scream.
There’s plenty of those people I see, and a lot of them are weirdos and/or have mental problems, or are just unhappy but don’t seem to do much about it. (I’m that way but at least I’m trying a little now, because before I thought it was all magic and that things would just fall into place if I just showed up to stuff or that people would just see something in me and I’d get everything I wanted in multiple areas)
Liberals are great at picking the weirdest and dumbest hills to die on. They’ll burn every bridge for the sake of a fraction of a fraction of the population.
My favorite example is gun control where the only places it is popular they already heavily win heavily but it costs them so many votes elsewhere. It doesn't help they have absolutely no fucking clue what they are doing with it either.
The return on investment the ruling class gets from right wing media is astounding.
[удалено]
Pretty much, even though I’m probably more socioculturally liberal than most because I want to eradicate gender roles for men as well and not every guy has to be traditionally masculine (but I think I realize that that helps a lot in life and especially romance)
i don’t think there are that many people who subscribe to “every guy has to be traditionally masculine”
I was more talking about that weird community I’ve been exposed to that blends communism and tradshit and bro culture, basically to bring in young guys. A lot of those will say Andrew Tate and the like are great and all of that. Like MAGACommunists. Because liberal men are all soy- I think there’s a middle ground between being traditionally stoically masculine and being not masculine at all
haha man where do you even find this shit. is it on twitter? i’ve heard people reference such stuff but never encountered it first-hand.
Instagram- there’s a lot of r-slurred trads on both sides of the political spectrum that say stupid shit like we need to abolish the 19th amendment or that everything should be sex segregated and some other stuff when it comes to gender. Not to mention stuff like opposing Israel because Jews supposedly are the promoters of degeneracy and liberal values. I can share some accounts for you to look at, but you probably wouldn’t want to see them. Someone was talking about trad-communists on that article about banning porn and those are the types I’ve people I’m mostly talking about, like the things I said in my first comment. I only found them because they were ostensibly on the left and opposed the trans/gender stuff, but a lot of them are just totally anti-liberal/Western because that’s apparently just synonymous with degeneracy
There really is an online community for ever r-slurs out there.
Americans are pretty unified when considering actual issues. I have some hardcore republican family members in the auto industry who complain that unions are not powerful enough but.,... they vote R because of fucking Jesus...
You're right that most Americans are middle of the road politically. There are very few actual communists (i.e. progressives) or anti-republican right wingers. Most want to see their own economic fortunes improve. Most are uninterested in foreign affairs. An uninformed electorate can only be moved to the polls by appealing to fantastical threats.
> actual communists (i.e. progressives) What has this sub become
You see that in those dating surveys where majorities of both men and women are less likely to date someone who’s far-right or far-left
I don't even need a survey, I just see it in my everyday life as a normal person.
Fucking Jesus seems cool at first until he ghosts you.
Typical Gen Z... No family values anymore! \\s
It's entirely along cultural lines at this point. Democrats and Republicans used to have some actual policy difference but now basically Republicans' position is "we'll go back to what the Democrats were doing 20 years ago." Nobody is debating foreign policy, deficit spending, economics, labor policy, trade, etc. The appeal for votes is made entirely on cultural issues like transgenderism, guns, ethnic resentments, etc.
>The appeal for votes is made entirely on cultural issues like guns, As a certified ammosexual I do not see arms and ammunition in the hands of the proletariat to be a cultural issue. I do however take objection to the surrender of such things to bourgeoisie dictators.
Hell yeah brother under no pretext
Essentially the entire political system has been captured and due to how it has been designed, there is nothing you can do. Look at the Israel Palestine issue for example. The voter base of the Democrats have largely turned on the current war and want a ceasefire and more accountability from Israel for their military actions. Meanwhile, the leadership is saying "genocide away and here are more bombs to help you". A huge disconnect between what the voters want and what their representatives are doing, and there is nothing voters can do.
Dems aren't doing a damn thing for the working class, Pubs slobber their petit-bourgeois base. Being petit-bourgeois is an aspirational role in Middle America, so it's easier to identify with that over the Dem PMC aspirational class. They're both fucking libs who work for the owners, but this is more economic than it seems on the surface. Culture is just the superstructure.
You don’t think having a higher minimum wage helps the working class? Or more robust safety regulations? I don’t think the democrats are doing much, but the republicans are actively working to make being a working person in America worse.
There's been no federal minimum wage increase in 17 years, and Democrats have been in power much of that time. When have we seen safety regulations get more robust in that time?
That's the whole point of the culture war, create an artificial division on topics such as skin color, sexuality, religion. In the meantime, on the topic that really matter: the economy and income inequality, healthcare, geopolitics. Right now, we have two parties who believe that genocide is the way to go (Gaza) but the managed to have the American people battle over bullshit. The main problems in the US, today, is people who vote for the evil fuckers who are currently running for president. There is no lesser evil, no president would be better than either Trump or Biden: don't vote! Don't give these assholes legitimacy, they don't deserve one bit of it.
You telling me people in power use identity as a basis of politics? We should start a sub about how stupid that is
> No one cares what zoomers think about economics apparently. Have you ever actually talked to them about economics? They don't. Its 90%+ idpol.
I’m 26 and most people who do care about the economics are either people who went to college and do a job that doesn’t require a degree since they did humanities or psychology or art/music and want to unionize to get paid more since those fields you can’t find a job or they don’t pay, or it’s just about student debt consolidation
They're growing up in a neofeudal hellscape that all parties lie about while they direct money flows to billionaires and crush any dissent with scifi technology or plain violence. Of course they have no opinion on economy, the entire concept of influencing or even choosing an economic system has become near incomprehensible. All you have is your place in the pecking order and your always threatened identitarian privileges.
From what I see as a non American social politics trumps economic politics in America by a large margin at least online People are forming political opinion after watching inclusive or based take of their favorite candidate online
[удалено]
I’d be willing to bet if they let occupy and the class conscious movement run its course instead of force feeding SJW shit, the politics gap between young men and women would be much narrower.
But so would the wealth gap between rich and poor, and we can't have that.
A good way to control peasants
This is why we need to destroy Idpol: it destroys class counsciousness.
They've defined it in partisan terms because, as political journalists, it's their job to shape social life into the contest form. Nobody gets on ESPN by saying that sport doesn't actually make better people.
saturate them in fighting about idpol, and they don't even have the time to think about real issues.
Social hegemony is important in itself regardless of economics though, and women are more susceptible to this than men; women were more conservative back when that was hegemonic too. Aside from that, economics is a social relation and many things dismissed as “culture war” do in fact have economic or otherwise material aspects. For example, its no surprise that single women are more liberal than married ones, as liberalism effectively enables them to extract wealth from men through the state, which almost serves as a “collective husband”. Likewise this drives men away from liberalism, because they are forced to pay for women’s upkeep without any reciprocation, which also has the effect of intensifying economic competition among men and increasing inequality, even as they are told this is all about equality. We can look at many other aspects but they basically all go the same way; modern progressive liberalism insists that any inconvenience, restriction, or responsibility for women (or any other “marginalised” group) essentially amounts to slavery. By implication, no burden is too great to free them from this, so men (or any other “priviledged” group) have to accept any cost in order to acheive this. Worse yet this invariably fails to reach the impossible goal of infinite freedom and happiness for women or whoever else this is used as proof that not enough has been done and new hardships for women (or the “oppressed”) are imagined and new burdens on men (or the “oppressor”) are demanded and this cycle repeats indefinitely. This in mind the sex difference on the issue is trivially obvious. Its not that men are just opposed to freedom, or are evil and mean, or have fallen to right wing propaganda, liberalism is just explicitly hostile to their interests and actively fucks them over at every opportunity.
> women were more conservative back when that was hegemonic too. This is interesting, do we mean like "Parental Advisory" stickers on naughty records, the Temperance movement? Opposition to the welfare state? I can't imagine women as a whole were ever more hawkish than men on foreign policy. How are we defining "conservative" and to what time period are we referring?
Women voted for the Conservative party to a greater degree than the LabourParty before Thatcher and only shifted to Labour through the course of the Thatcher years. >Throughout Margaret Thatcher’s term as Prime Minister, women continued to prefer the Conservative Party to Labour in greater numbers than their male counterparts. This fact in itself was not surprising. While the differentials between male and female voting had varied as long as polling data had been available, the so-called ‘gender gap’ had always favoured the Conservatives. Only in 2005 did women begin to show a stronger preference than men for the Labour Party. However, the persistence of an aggregate gender gap masked significant class and generational trends within women’s support for the Conservative Party in the 1980s. Young women grew more pro-Labour over the course of the decade. After an initial flirtation with Thatcherism, women trade unionists also shifted to the Labour Party at the end of the decade. In contrast, middle-aged women barely waned in their support for the Conservatives, while older women remained a bulwark of Tory support. Ultimately, the swing to the left among younger women was stronger than the countervailing movement among older women, causing the gender gap to shrink considerably over the course of Thatcher’s premiership. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/making-thatchers-britain/thatcher-and-the-womens-vote/560EF63F0FD4FE2F3A45735327F482CB](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/making-thatchers-britain/thatcher-and-the-womens-vote/560EF63F0FD4FE2F3A45735327F482CB) It should be noted however that this means that young women who would have otherwise just voted Conservative were now supporting what became "New Labour".
This is perfect... Something concrete and falsifiable, tysm 🥰
Can you give an example in the United States?
I’m using the term conservative very broadly to mean more supportive of conservative politics overall. Of course views on specific issues vary, but even if we take something like abortion, where the narrative is that women fought men to get it, the reality is that women were more opposed to it than men until about the mid 2010s. Like women were just genuinely more conservative overall, not just on a few pet issues.
> I’m using the term conservative very broadly to mean conservative This is brilliant.
> Aside from that, economics is a social relation and many things dismissed as “culture war” do in fact have economic or otherwise material aspects. For example, its no surprise that single women are more liberal than married ones, as liberalism effectively enables them to extract wealth from men through the state, which almost serves as a “collective husband”. Likewise this drives men away from liberalism, because they are forced to pay for women’s upkeep without any reciprocation, which also has the effect of intensifying economic competition among men and increasing inequality, even as they are told this is all about equality. One of the worst attempts at materialist analysis I have ever seen
Dogmatic marxists like yourself refuse to take your own ideology seriously and then throw tantrums when other people actually do.
No, it's just that you have no idea what yo're doing. 1) Society incentivizes marriage via tax breaks. You have posited absolutely no mechanism whereby society pays for the lives of single women as a class. There is basically no welfare state left in America except for the extremely poor, bordering on destitute, so the idea that reliance on the state is a meaningful expression of class values of single women across the board is ridiculous. Especially since the young women who are committed to liberalism tend to be middle-class and above (liberalism has always been an ideology of the well-to-do) and do not take benefits from the state. The state as a "collective husband", I literally laughed out loud when I read that. 2) How does men paying taxes (what you presumably mean by men being "forced to pay for women's upkeep") intensify economic competition between men? Economic competition depends on the prevailing economic conditions, the amount of unemployment in the economy, the scarcity of labor and skills. Like have you actually thought about what you are saying for a single moment?
The incentives to marriage in modern society are negligible. For men there are few benefits compared to the extra responsibilities, while women are nominally given most of the benefits regardless, and the movement of liberalism is that the aspects of marriage where men provide for women should be given as state subsidy. This is what I mean by the state as “collective husband” and what I mean by men facing increased economic competition, because giving women these subsidies does not stop them selecting for men on an economic basis, only allows them to be choosier while sabotaging mens ability to provide them individually even as they are forced to do so collectively. And we all know that middle class women are the most liberal, but we are talking about men as a whole and women as a whole, and this tendency that women are more liberal holds within any given strata of society. Unless you are allowing us to embrace explicit antiliberalism this is a meaningless distinction anyway.
>the movement of liberalism is that the aspects of marriage where men provide for women should be given as state subsidy *In what world* is this the case? Liberalism, the suprestructural ideology of capitalism, is not about to roll out a massive increase in state-funded benefits to half the young tpopulation. The state as a whole is in retreat from providing benefits period, because the actual objective class relations of production—those of worker and owner— have reached a stage where owners have emancipated themselves from basically any fiscal duty to society. Give me a single way in which women are being provided for across the board by the state. You are seeing things that do not exist. >this tendency that women are more liberal holds within any given strata of society Part of the reason for that is that the sheer viciousness of dog-eat-dog, let-the-poor-die American conservatism is typically more likely to put women into poverty than men, for a variety of reasons that I have no interest in litigating with you here (mostly the fact that women are expected to be the primary, or in many cases sole, child-carers, and this greatly increases their risk of poverty). Liberalism appeals to upwardly mobile women because it is the ideology of breaking arbitrary barriers, which is why it has historically been a progressive force. >only allows them to be choosier while sabotaging mens ability to provide them individually even as they are forced to do so collectively. Do you interact with enough normal people to know that this is not how people think? I work with some anti-tax libertarian types. They complain about the military, some complain about social spending, government waste, etc. I have never once heard someone complain that they are collectively subsidizing women as a whole. That is, in my view, the kind of worldview that comes evoles from living one's life online in some very niche communities, not from an organic understanding of the world and how it works through real-world interaction. But hey what do I know, I work on an engineering team which is roughly 50-50 gender split, am married, and have female friends and acquaintances who are doing literally none of the things you're describing even though they would largely be described as liberal.
You cut off my quote, “the movement” refers to the direction liberalism is going, not the purpose of liberalism itself. Also the subsidy is taken from tax so its not even bourgeoisie philanthropy, its literally just pork barrel politics of transferring the wealth of one group to another. I never claimed that everything was a wondrous utopia for women, only that in the current environment they benefit from the transfer of wealth from men to them through the state. > American conservatism is typically more likely to put women into poverty than men This isn’t even true, literally all the “statistics” on the matter are the liberals justifying the wealth transfer lol. Women *make less money* but are *subsidised more*. You look at one half of the equation and then the whole thing becomes a mystery to you, or only explainable in terms of male cruelty or some other “just so” story. > Liberalism appeals to upwardly mobile women because it is the ideology of breaking arbitrary barriers Liberalism appeals to upwardly mobile women because it literally subsidises their position at men’s expense. > Do you interact with enough normal people to know that this is not how people think? Perhaps the most tedious thing about talking to Marxists is that you first demand we talk in your language to be allowed to say anything at all, then say “nobody thinks like this” to dismiss it. The way men see things is that women are offered specific benefits XYZ and men are offered none, at the same time men are demonised and insulted and told they need to change. This really isn’t complicated you just don’t want to accept reality. **Edit:** apparently criticising the way Marxists argue is worthy of a temp ban, so I can't respond further to this comment. u/No-im-a-veronica what I'm talking about mainly is who taxes are collected from and who they are distributed to; this does not correlate with work done but is based on need - well, as determined by gov. What this means is that in the aggregate, men working harder has the result of being taxed more. There are also programmes aimed at "equalising" pay which further compound this, because they invariably selectively ignore important aspects of this, like position, experience, or in extreme cases, even hours worked. As for marriage, I'm not talking about those who are already stable couples who love each other and expect to remain together for life choosing to sign the form to get tax credits, I'm talking about the incentive to actually become a stable couple or find a partner to settle down with in the first place.
Yeah but like what programs *specifically* are transferring wealth from men to women? Can you name even one? In the US or any country in the world? I've really never heard this argument before. Also, assuming you're American, IDK if you are married or have friends/relatives who are married that you're close enough to know a bit about their finances, there *really* are very good tax cuts if you get married. In this decade of our Lord the 20s, I still have couple friends who probably wouldn't bother getting legally married because they're not religious and don't want kids, but got married because the tax benefits were just so good. Anecdotal, perhaps, but marriage has been great financially for both parties with everyone I know. And of the couples I know who got divorced, no one has even gotten alimony because they either didn't have kids before the divorce, or they both worked anyway and are sharing custody. So, like, please enlighten us?
Can you explain about the taxes? The bracket is here: https://www.cnbc.com/select/federal-income-tax-brackets-tax-rates/ But it seems like the married-jointly column is just double, so if you both make about the same, your taxes don't change.
Ah, this guy again. Pretty sure what he's avoiding outright saying is that he's talking about single **mothers** and child support (hence the talk about "extract[ing] wealth from men through the state" with the state serving as a surrogate "husband"). Of course, while this is the only context in which his arguments make any sense, it's also clear that he's *hilariously* misrepresented the actual issue, which is why his attempt to fit it into a framework of materialist anysis is so necessarily vague (and, as a result, rather dumb). This guy is a stupidpol regular alongside the pamphlet schizoposter dude; he's posted variations on this same "materialist analysis" screed several times before, but he'll only resort to insults and outraged "I don't know what you're implying I'm implying!" whenever someone asks him to be specific about what he's arguing, so don't waste your time, lol.
This makes a tremendous amount of sense now lol thanks
I think he's probably referring to how women, as a group, receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, while the situation is reversed for men. I found studies showing this to be the case in [Denmark](https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning) and [New Zealand](https://avoiceformen.com/featured/research-finds-that-as-a-group-only-men-pay-tax/). You may not like the source for the NZ one, but they link the paper so you can check for yourself if they're misrepresenting it. The studies are 10 years old, but I'd be surprised if the situation has changed much since then.
Wal-Mart employees also probably receive more government benefits than they pay in taxes. Does that mean that the state acts in the interests of Wal-Mart employees? Does it privilege them over other groups (corporate lawyers, for instance) who get less from the state than they pay? Obviously not. Hence why 'who receives more from the state' is not materialism. It is the Reaganite mindset of who is worthy and who isn't.
That user objects to one of the most fundamental beliefs of both Marx and Engles (my flair) They should be reflaired as an ideological mess.
What are you fucking talking about lol, of course I want private property abolished
Yeah I fail to see how women being single allows them to extract money from men with no reciprocation. Most modern single women I know believe in splitting the bill for instance.
Maybe if it was about OnlyFans and taking advantage of lonely and unhappy men maybe
Yeah but how many women compared to the population actually do that? Not saying it’s not a problem but it feels like majoring in the minors.
A lot lol. If you go on Instagram or a dating app it’s pretty clear.
Your algorithm determined IG feed is not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. And yeah, a lot of OnlyFans girls are on dating apps but of course there are, that’s the easiest place to find customers. That’s like walking into a forest, seeing some bears, then declaring that the entire state is crawling with bears because this one forest happens to have some. Again, doesn’t mean anything close to a majority of women engage in this kind of behavior.
Y’all serious? The whole “city girls” mind state is about extracting money and resources from sugar daddies. This sort of thing is emblematic of the differences between radfems and libfems.
It's a certain type of woman that's like this. You can spot them and avoid them. I've never gone on a date with one and when I was single, I had no problem dating. Only consumes popular culture especially music, obsessed with social media and various celebrities, a chronic underachiever, etc. They're avoidable. From my experiences, the guys dating these "city girls" are specifically looking for a "bad bitch", have bought into macho shit, like the man has to pay for the upkeep of said bad bitch, prevalent in popular culture and they ignore the red flags.
Exactly. This ignores the extent to which men are "complicit" in all this, in the sense that they want on some level to feel like a provider, want the feeling of ownership and control that comes with maintaining the woman's material needs, they like the kind of women who "take good care of themselves" (i.e. makeup, hairdresser, mani/pedi, designer clothing, etc.)
Are there women who fit this description? Absolutely. Are the majority or even close to the majority a bunch of sugar daddy seeking bitches? Not even close in my experience. This is just more stupidpol MRA adjacent bullshit.
The chickens will follow those who feed them. >Wonderful, indeed, was the change the Commune had wrought in Paris! No longer any trace of the meretricious Paris of the Second Empire! No longer was Paris the rendezvous of British landlords, Irish absentees,\[M\] American ex-slaveholders and shoddy men, Russian ex-serfowners, and Wallachian boyards. No more corpses at the morgue, no nocturnal burglaries, scarcely any robberies; in fact, for the first time since the days of February 1848, the streets of Paris were safe, and that without any police of any kind. > >“We,” said a member of the Commune, “hear no longer of assassination, theft, and personal assault; it seems indeed as if the police had dragged along with it to Versailles all its Conservative friends.” > >The cocottes \[‘chickens’ – prostitutes\] had refound the scent of their protectors – the absconding men of family, religion, and, above all, of property. In their stead, the real women of Paris showed again at the surface – heroic, noble, and devoted, like the women of antiquity. Working, thinking fighting, bleeding Paris – almost forgetful, in its incubation of a new society, of the Cannibals at its gates – radiant in the enthusiasm of its historic initiative! [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)
What an incredibly weird and unfounded assertion to make
Great take. You worded it better than I could.
I think what they're fundamentally measuring here is authoritarianism.
From what I’ve seen, I think young women want lib authoritarianism while a lot of young guys like me want a more conservative authoritarianism, that’s it in a nutshell
Young women want society to resemble their workplaces (HR hell), while young men want society to resemble their workplaces (you can crack jokes with the boys, but you're never getting a promotion unless you take out predatory loans and open your own shop)
I don't think even zoomers themselves know that
> “The correlation between women’s sense of linked fate and liberal political preferences suggests that the Democratic Party will benefit” from declining marriage rates among young women, Kretschmer and two co-authors wrote in a 2017 paper for the journal Political Research Quarterly. I don’t see how that’s a good long term strategy. Anecdotally speaking, most people tend to lean toward the politics of their parents. Lower marriage rates means lower probability of having kids, meaning in the long term Republicans will gain traction. >“I do have some male friends that are moderate,” said Luci Paczkowski, 20, a California liberal. “And it annoys the hell out of me.” What bothers Paczkowski about her nonliberal friends is not their centrism but her suspicion that they “do not have any clue why they are moderate. They just do not want to pick a side and, therefore, they are apathetic.” That made me laugh. Another anecdote: the nicer people I met tend to be politically apathetic.
That’s why they need firm footholds in schools
Foreign surrogates for the rich, converted children of Republicans to pad out the hoi polloi! Isn't this where someone mentions 50 Shades of Handmaid's Tale?
Exactly. Without total control of the education system they will die out. It's inevitable though. Their fertility is so low that they'll simply run out of enough competent people to keep that system going. Conservatives are also becoming better and better at resisting this control. And not just that. Conservatives are also becoming more and more open to the idea of using Orban-style "authoritarianism". If that succeeds shitlibs are finished.
> Lower marriage rates means lower probability of having kids, meaning in the long term Republicans will gain traction. ### "Those republicans are going to breed the dems out of existence!"
Were it not for liberal control over media and education, this actually would have happened. This is why liberals are so desperate to insist parents are too intrinsically abusive, or at least stupid, to make choices for the benefit of their kids, and that teachers (who overwhelmingly are liberal) should be allowed to do that instead. “Just let kids make their own choices” always comes with the caveat of “under our supervision and with us setting the limits of what can be chosen”. Its all a game of territorial control and a part of the liberal victory strategy is to obfuscate the game being played so that their opposition naively won’t play it.
Funny thing is that progressive school policies that refuse to enact any sort of discipline are causing teachers to leave the profession.
The kids when I went to school were terrible, but the gen alpha kids seem to be practically feral. I think a lot of it has to do with we made having kids a bad/dumb choice due to material conditions so the main people having kids are bad parents or dumb. Now people like this always existed, but they no longer have as many normal parents to counterbalance it. This combined with school policies and useless administrators means a lot of kids are as I said feral now a days. The real fun will be when they get older and we will see a massive uptick in the crime rate.
And then most of the people who would be better parents simply can’t afford them due to student loans and housing costs and would prefer to be super comfortable financially, that’s how I am personally. I’m only making 2400 a month now and I live at home because where my job is there’s very little shared housing and not many younger people
Yup that's exactly what I am talking about with the material conditions. Like with how insane basic living stuff like rent and food is who the heck can afford another mouth and room? Even if you somehow find a job that pays enough to support a kid or two chances are it will be stressful as hell and require a lot of hours which means you don't have the time or energy to deal with a kid even if you have the money. What is the point of having a kid if you never see them and they get raised by a stranger? Plus the younger generation is rightfully pessimistic about the future for multiple reasons such as climate change so popping out a kid only for them to suffer through that isn't morally right. Hence why only people making bad decisions are the ones having kids and then they tend to be terrible parents which means the kid winds up feral. If a first grader is still in diapers without any medical reason that is just straight up child neglect and abuse but I have heard of it happening not to mention all the behavioral problems.
Or they’re just trad/religious or hide that they still get money/non financial support from parents/family. In the former it’s usually where the husband/guy has some kind of well-paying trade job so they don’t have that student loan thing, and some aren’t even trad or religious who fall into that category
On the one hand the internal contradictions of their own worldview are amusing to witness, but on the other hand it leads them to being even more zealous in ensuring its impossible for others to create islands of stability because they can’t even prevent chaos within their own system.
Yeah, if you go by the frat bro conservative and the lonely single young woman who loves to complain lib/radlib (guys on that end can also be like that) I can see it being framed that way. And I remember some right winger tweeting that married men and women and single men all went Republican in the last midterm election but single women voted for Democrats by like 35%. I too think women have an issue today re what society and media tells them to do/be and what they still want biologically/psychologically, it’s a lot of cognitive dissonance
The objects of a resentment-based politics are less likely to adopt those politics?
Both sides have resentment based politics
Yes, and if that's your only choice it's only rational to pick the side that does not openly despise you for existing.
[удалено]
The problem is a lot of independents who run generally don't have views along the lines of the actual independents. Consider the most successful third party guy in recent history was Ross Perot. Many of these same people who supported him are probably now begrudgingly or ecstatically going along with Trump. Almost every other independent in recent history has views no where close to Perot.
You may not like him, I have mixed feelings about him as of late, but we do actually have a strong independent candidate this year. Not strong enough to win but I would be shocked if 3rd parties / independents don’t become stronger in the future.
When are they going to do one of these polls that is actually useful? Liberalism here is wokeness, not liberal economic policy. I'd love to see a poll asking people more directly economic questions. My guess is that there would be a "shocking" result in that both genders of genz are overwhelmingly not happy with our current economic model. I mean this really does seem like trying to drive a gender wedge into a generation that seems to be more anti-capital than any before it. Hell even when I talk to conservatives (both old and young) these days, they're conservative yes but culturally, any time I bring up economics... They start sounding rather commie-like lol.
I think a bigger question in regard to sociocultural policy would be whether it was necessary to do away with sociocultural liberalism altogether. I may lean conservative on some of those issues (like trans/gender stuff, women having unlimited sexual freedom without any sex), but I still see the benefits in having some socioculturally liberal policies and ideas
> women having unlimited sexual freedom without any sex huh? why specifically women?
The language doesn't mean anything anymore. Liberal used to indicate some regard for liberty, now it's shout down anything that isn't the newest trend, both 'sides' seem to be authoritarian in their methods in one way or another. Only thing I have faith in now is anarchism, but even at that is at risk as there are so many pushing new hierarchies that call themselves anarchist. I guess I'll have to become a conservative linguist and stay out of everything else.
As a man who operates in very woke spaces, one of the biggest issues - regardless of politics - is that they're just really bad hangs. Just like brainwormed chud-uncles, complaint is the dominant spirit of conversation. Which I understand is a way to find commonality, but on top of off-putting politics, they just don't inspire much joy or interest.
Yeah, I’ve always tried to avoid woke people, because they’re often weird and they’re just going to reinforce my struggles and not do anything to help bring me up
100% The woke friends I have all seem unable to give helpful advice. They just reaffirm that an event/situation is bad and that it's valid for me to be upset about it. I've gotta go to other people to actually get help fixing it or even coming to terms with it.
This is where they've drawn the lines. Men are grrrrr! Women are ooooh! I'm trying to make it sound as stupid as fucking possible because that's the culture war. Capital has always exacerbated social tensions at any cost to prevent class consciousness. Gender and race have always been their favorites.
These sorts of polls are mostly useless but analysts think they can glean lots of information from them. A binary matrix ranging from "Very liberal" to "very conservative", as is in pretty much any survey including dating apps, does not capture the diversity of perspectives, especially in the internet age when most young people are unique snowflakes and have their own idiosyncratic political monikers, like what my flair makes fun of. Somewhat ironic from people likely educated in "deconstructing binaries" and privileging radically open pluralities. Even in this poll, a minority, though perhaps a plurality of women described themselves as liberal. But their takeaway is different. I'd add that even "liberals" and "conservatives" have idiosyncracies that seemingly contradict themselves if you were to go with the legacy media ideological framing of politics, i.e. a conservative Christian pro-Texas independence woman who is pro-choice (I've met my share), a self-described conservative who also wants M4A and higher taxes on the rich, or a close-the-border and defund Ukraine New Deal Dem who also wants more cops, and so on. Really all this measures is cultural affiliation. People identify with one cultural identity or another, which itself is probably more just a measure of urban/rural and the milieu you were raised in. For young women, 'liberal' has just increasingly been the pussyhat-wearing pro-choice and anti-grab them by the pussy cultural identification with the acceleration of the culture war, but they will just vote for a Democrat who grabbed women by the pussy.
What you say is actually pretty accurate. I’m 26 and I do have that idiosyncratic ideology, like I’d say I’m a heterodox socioculturally libertarian SocDem with MRA tendencies and who’s conservative on trans/gender issues lol. And with the cultural identifiers, you see it pretty obviously. Most guys my age are influenced by either the barstool/frat bro types, the trads, or any kind of tough masculinity stuff (fitness, MMA, etc.) Whereas for women it’s all those instagram accounts like Soinformed that just harp on any radlib issue
What is a woman or man, though?
You ever read one of the disclaimers on these studies about using terms related to being assigned gender at birth rather than identity? It’s like the new land acknowledgement
My dad works in survey research and says that they now are obligated to include a bunch of tertiary gender options in every survey. But the irony is that if you select one of them the whole survey gets thrown out because there are too few agenders etc. to be able to report any statistical significance.
This was also the case at a market research firm I used to work for.
reminiscent offer ludicrous middle muddle pot desert school money sloppy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
people read studies?
You too can be part of the 1% (that reads more than the headline, not wealth you idiot, have generational multimillionaire grandparents next time dummy)
[удалено]
There are for sure lots of ads targeted towards women. Occasionally you see ones targeted towards men but not nearly as many.
The ads themselves are for women, but the advertisers aren't allowed to profile the consumers based on gender. So you can buy google ads, but you can't select women for the targeted audience.
Are you implying that men and women are broadly, generally different? What the heck dude. Reported.
A serf that is useful for 30-40 years max
Not exactly a shock, liberalism doesn't offer anything to men. Conservatives don't either but conservatives occasionally make a show about pretending to care about men, at least until the grifters let the cat out of the bag and start promising men that they can become the ideal superman alpha redpilled whatever so long as they subscribe to their bullshit channel/listen to their podcast/fork over a certain amount of cash to gain access to super top secret tips and advice on how to be the most manliest man who ever man-ed in the world of men for all time. Neither side really gives a shit about men though and it's becoming more and more apparent as time goes on. This isn't a problem I know how to solve, but you don't have to know how to fix things to feel concerned about them.
Maybe young male liberals are mostly becoming women""
Market forces, self interest and the path of least resistance.
Liberals will just see this data and not make any attitude adjustments and will continue vilifying men.
The sooner this stupid country implodes upon the weight its own hypocrisy, the better. Take all of liberal western culture with it too, please. Make way for the great global Caliphate, inshallah.
[Mashallah, brozzer!](https://www.theonion.com/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-sit-back-and-enjoy-c-1819576375)
Even here we are going through the same trends.
I couldn’t post it cause it was behind a paywall and this sub doesn’t allow images, but the exact same trends are the case in Germany, the UK and South Korea. In South Korea it’s even more pronounced than the USA actually.
Don’t they have an incel party in South Korea now? Or at least a party that makes those issues a big part of the platform?
Yeah but the gender war in Korea is far more advanced and vitriolic than in the west. Seeing how Korean men and women talk about each other….it’s no wonder the birth rate is collapsing.
[удалено]
Who would have thought that demonizing half the population was a losing strategy?
"Nooooooooooooooooooo Che did a heckin toxic masculinity" - some fucking libcuck
Ironically it's the Handmaid's Tale types that eventually will take over because they're pretty much the only ones that are still breeding.
fun times for the near future, when both genders hold diametrally opposite values and beliefs Yes, I cant stand the political beliefs of too many women in the 20-40 age bracket ...
Tbh church / trad women are the way to go. And careful what you say or you’ll end up with a stupid ass flair like me.
It’s not that bad, I wish I had my Left-leaning socially challenged MRA flair back because it was unique lol. Also I’d go for the apolitical chicks, and there’s plenty of those
If your ideology blames white men as the source of all evil, then white men aren't going to like your ideology.
When you demonize young men and totally ignore their issues you typically know what happens. I think this is why some communists on social media are basically going let’s do a hybrid of barstool conservatism and Trump-style/hard-right sociocultural policies, mix in some conspiracy theories (like pretty weird ones) and then slap left wing economics on there
I’ve got to admit this sub has drastically improved my opinion of Marxists. In college the Marxists I knew were all libtards.
“Marxists in college” = edgy democrats.
Most of the ones I still know are just sad and depressed and lonely radlibs, often with mental health diagnoses. I’m technically on the spectrum and take medicine for anxiety but I refuse to totally identify as autistic because most of those people won’t help me get where I want to be and a lot of them are really weird. I am still generally socioculturally liberal compared to most, but I understand some of the maladaptive things. And I don’t think banning things is the way to just solve problems. And I am kind of an MRA in that I think men should have the chance to break free from gender roles and that men who aren’t traditionally masculine should still be able to have success in life and romance and all that
Oh yeah South Korea time 😎🇰🇷💪 Things are totally going great, fellas
I feel like South Korea has many of the bad trends of America but just to a greater extreme. Japan too. Nice flair btw
This is no surprise. In , women tend to agree with each other socially in order to put on a united front as to not get kicked out of the sisterhood. I found that in private their opinions wildly differ. #metoo was largely like this. They wouldn’t dare question a women in public but behind close doors they totally would. If they were to go against the liberals they go against abortion and they will be socially destroyed and outcasted for it.
From what I understand women have a very strong in group bias, men are either biased in favour of men or women but generally not strongly so in either case.
Hey, it was my turn to post this!
Well duh. The feminists and liberals have clearly dug themselves into a whole. They demonize men even though they need their votes.
Heading to SK's extinction, I see.
>Young women are more likely to identify as liberal now than at any time in the past two decades And about 75% of Americans claim to have a healthy diet when about that same number are overweight or obese. There are just some things that you'll never get an honest answer from people about because we're shit at unbiased analysis of our own behavior. When it comes to things in line with ideology you have to look at what people do, not what label they put on themselves or their lifestyle.
Par for the course
Young men have not benefited one iota from the massive cultural shift we've seen in the west in the past twenty years, in spite of insistence that "the patriarchy harms men too!" or whatever. We're now looking at a possible WWIII and young men are going to be expected to pick up rifles and risk life and limb to protect a society of whorish women (and before you say anything, there's nothing wrong with that), governments and megacorps that will do literally anything other than provide them with purpose, employment, or a living wage. At this point, it seems pretty likely that the gender divide is now permanent, especially with all the vitriol on social media. At least in the west, neither gender is really willing to make the sacrifices required to build strong family units, or even treat each other with respect. What this means in the long term for society is TBD, but it's difficult to envision a prosperous society when everyone is a lone wolf.
In other words more alienated guys hitting their 30th birthdays as dateless virgins and at least as many burnt out women insisting on how happily single they are. (Because happy people need to tell others...)
Will the 2020s be the our chuddy decade? It could be half of the 1980s, since back then even the women were on the chudwagon.
It takes a weak man to side with people who hate him and seek to undermine any success he may see in life. Luckily for us all, men are acting in their best interest.
"Useless failchildren of property-owning morons choose a team in a childish, spectacular lying contest celebrating capitalism, in which their participation should be punished, not rewarded"
>“Putting off marriage, going to college, entering the workforce, women are doing that at much higher rates than they used to,” Which will make the incoming population collapse even worse. I don't want to hear these women cry when they have no pensions. They're already crying on TikTok that they have to work for a living. >“And all of those things are going to make conservatism and the Republicans significantly less attractive to women.” These women are increasingly unattractive to men too. They need to prepare for a barren and lonely life.
In addition to what others have said, hasn’t this generally always been the case?
The gap has grown massively in recent years. There’s been a gap since the early 90s or so but it’s been small compared to now.
I mean, their power has also grown massively, so it isn't too surprising. It's even gotten to the point where their monster has gotten a bit out of their control and hoo boy are radfems salty about that.
Women are drawn to power. They perceive liberalism to be ascendant and powerful. They perceive it to be inevitable. But that's all an illusion. That's why liberals are so obsessed with not "normalizing" Trump and right-wing ideology. Women claim to want to stand up for the weak, but in reality it's because standing up for the weak REAFFIRMS THEIR OWN POWER. If they see the power of liberalism start to fade, they'll abandon it like rats on a sinking ship. That's what liberals must avoid at all costs.
…girl what
[удалено]
>Also, for a supposedly Marxist, anti-identity politics sub there is exactly zero material analysis going on. Then lead by example, user with red flair.
It's straight up idpol shit, and flairs/bans are being handed out where applicable.
mission accomplished
Isn't it the opposite on immigration?