I thought the UK graph was incredible. How did such a left-leaning country end up with such an opposite government for 14 years? The answer is the voting system, first past the post. Boris Johnson won total control of the UK with 43% of the vote.
The Conservative party won 43% of votes and 56% of seats. The Labour party won 32% of votes and 31% of seats. Despite winning only 1.34x more votes, the conservatives received 1.8x more seats. (It's even worse, the Liberal Democrats won 11% of votes, and got 2% of seats; the Conservatives received 3.9x the votes and 28x the seats...)
The Conservatives changed the voting system for the London mayoral elections from supplementary vote to first past the post with the Elections Act 2022.
The UK has become a less democratic country with the government being less representative of the views of its people.
You could also point out that the SNP got 3.9% of the total vote and 7.8% of the total seats. I don't have a solution to this, the game has to be played under the existing rules, but I don't think this means it's "less democratic". Certain measures are definitely anti-democratic (for example, the voter ID issue), but the system itself is what it has been for a long time.
I still think that a partial driver of Brexit was that UKIP didn't get a single seat, despite getting a large proportion of the vote. That may have exposed their shallowness as well as sating their voters somewhat, but looking at Europe just now (e.g. the AfD in Germany) maybe that's naive of me.
First Past the Post is less democratic than other systems of voting.
Consider various definitions of democracy, they're usually along the lines of:
> Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the “people,” a group historically constituted by only a minority of the population (e.g., all free adult males in ancient Athens or all sufficiently propertied adult males in 19th-century Britain) but generally understood since the mid-20th century to include all (or nearly all) adult citizens.
Put simply, democracy is a government by the people.
But in the elections I referenced, we see that some groups of people are underrepresented in government. Their opinions are not contributing to decisions as much as other people's.
It's similar to gerrymandering. Keep the same voting system, but distribute electoral areas so that a certain group of people will never have political power. Wouldn't you say that's less democratic?
There is nothing inherently about proportional, mixed-member, AV, or other systems that make them more "democratic" or "fair" than FPTP. Democracy is any system in which the will of the people is reflected via a systematic manner choosing its representatives. Conversely, if the goal is to make a system as "democratic" as possible, the only logical conclusion is direct democracy, with no representative layer whatsoever. That's a reasonable stance to take. What is not reasonable is to claim that any systematic, regularized manner of election with abundant precedent in reflecting the will of the populace is inherently and objectively less "fair" than another, or even that "fairness" is an abstract ideal that can be achieved.
Gerrymandering is different to the system itself getting less democratic. The UK Electoral Commission is meant to be non-political in setting boundaries. Obviously, there will be pressure applied for advantage but, frankly, that's how adversarial politics works. As I pointed out, you get groups who are over represented as well. While FPTP is not 1:1 mapping of voters to representation, it's still democratic, particularly in a representative democracy, as "the people" choose someone to represent them.
Watching PR in action in Europe, I also don't think it's the panacea some people see it as. The horse trading happens behind doors when forming coalitions, rather than upfront, at least in theory, in a manifesto. It seems to start promisingly, but fragments to the extent that there is no stable government formed (Belgium), or a minority government that can't actually do anything (France), or having to bring in formerly shunned "unpleasant" groups (as I mentioned before, I can see there are pros and cons to that) because voters are so disenchanted with the disfunction (Germany) they don't vote for the more palatable options anymore.
I don't have a good answer to what is "better", but the main thing in any democracy is to get informed and vote. Even if you are in a ___location where your vote is taken for granted or diluted, it is still pressure on the main parties to change their position (vis UKIP and the Conservatives) as votes slip away quickly.
I think we actually agree a lot and I appreciate your reflection on voting systems and democracy.
I agree with you that FPTP is democratic, and that you get groups who are over-represented (such as your example with SNP).
I respect your point about deficiencies with alternative voting systems as seen in other countries in Europe, and do distrust anyone that promises a panacea in general.
I couldn't agree more about being well-informed and actually voting.
I also agree with your earlier points that I didn't mention in my other comment, about other recent anti-democratic measures (specifically Voter ID), and your particularly prescient point about a partial driver of Brexit.
That last point is something that I've thought about a lot, and I think it's worth pondering more.
I'm guessing it's not a coincidence that the country with the biggest ideological gender gap (South Korea) also has the lowest fertility rate. I'll also guess that the low fertility rate is not the cause of the high ideology gap.
One of the questions to denote liberal/conservative was a question about family. SK women specifically do not value the family role vs career. This will definitely affect fertility rates.
That post is confusing to me. It says "Young women have become markedly more progressive on gender norms, but young men have not budged." and then shows a diagram that many young women want to have a family and children, with work being optional, which to me completely doesn't sound like "progressive on gender norms".
Or the patriarchal culture with rampant gender based discrimination and pay inequality combined with freedom of information and decent education for all.
In this country abortion was illegal until 2020, marital rape still seems not explicitly illegal etc.
If this were reddit you would be banned for life. Refreshing that there still exist some spaces where uncomfortable thoughts can still be voiced, and isn't twitter.
Another divide I'll wager, and more than a little ancillary to the aforementioned ideological divide.
reddit is not even worth mentioning? Mods there have scripts to auto-ban people who didn't even post anything simply if they joined "wrong" subreddits, posts are banned routinely without any explanation etc.
As a married dude - I'll offer some advice to other engineers that may be having trouble due to political issues of potential mates.
Since the topic implies human coupling is down because of political ideologies... the advice is sort of like in business "put yourself where the majority of the business is"
- If you live in a place where the majority opinion is yours, you're all set.
- If not, move to where they are.
If you're conservative, living in Portland... it's going to be hard. If you're liberal living in Alabama, you may have to move to the east or west coasts.
Sure you can dig and find someone in your locale, but go where the fishing is plenty.
As a married dude who is marginally conservative living in the outer Portland area, I think it depends on what your goals are. I enjoy relationships where I'm not talking in an echo chamber. There are, of course, people who refuse to engage with me based on a presupposition of my ideology (you're an oppressive "conservative"), but I would say it's a minority in my experience. In a healthy relationship, where we're engaging in activities together, sharing meals, and being present in difficult times, I've found that politically charged discussions are much more fruitful as barriers go down. We can then talk about an issue with an understanding that it doesn't define our relationship. Over time, a mutual benefit is obtained, where we both end up with a stronger understanding of certain ideologies and can engage in a more healthy manner with others.
Anyways, just a counter-point, and I understand it doesn't fit everyone.
> If you're conservative, living in Portland... it's going to be hard. If you're liberal living in Florida, you may have to move to the east or west coasts
Or challenge your views! You don’t need to switch parties. But more often than not, the difference is one of prioritising different issues more than disagreeing on hot-button ones. Or, where there is disagreement, disagreeing on aspects versus the conventional packaging of the issue.
The conventional phrasing for this is "hide your power level". If you're good at playing Ideological Turing Test games you're all set no matter what your starting ideology is, and you might find that you can also change others' views in your direction.
It depends on how you want to spend your time, right? Fully agree you can change people, but is that worth spending your time? Do you have other goals in life?
I recall a moving story to me on ... "This American Life" on NPR, which had a story about the most moving way for people to change their minds on polarizing issues, is to spend lots of time talking & hanging out with people who lived personally with whatever is the opposing views in a civil manner.
The example at the time was based on groups not accepting the gay lifestyle spending time with those who were.
But just because you try, doesn't mean the other person is ready to accept. So like in chaos theory, you have to plan on failure..... hope for success.
> It’s not an argument you can win, especially if you win. (Couples who live
together learn this about certain arguments.)
> Instead, you’ll be amazed how bonding it is when four people wrestle an old
washing machine out of the brown water that none of them could have managed alone.
This is called a superordinate goal, and social psychologists can cite many studies that
show it really does open doors between groups.
Being an academic, he should have the relevant literature cites somewhere if you prefer primary sources.
As another married dude — there are many worse fates than to be a young man in a world full of hippie chicks. (in the old days achieving this outcome used to require a high tolerance to patchouli and veggie burritos)
Who'd want to date a woman they couldn't disagree with politically? If nothing else it'd be really boring.
I remember one of the most comforting parts about getting married to wife was planning the wedding. We didn't agree on some things but we could work together in a way that positive for both of us.
Really though out of all the things that create friction in a relationship if it seems like it's politics then I would tend to suspect that politics is an overlay for something else because - and I say this as someone who has fairly strong political beliefs - what a stupid thing to lose (or not get at all) a good relationship over.
Poland has similar approval of the center and the right from both men and women.
Yet, there is a stark difference between the far-right (almost only men, especially young) and the left (much more support from women, especially young).
I wouldn't be surprised if a similar pattern followed elsewhere in Europe.
Or France. The other day, I read an article that said that 50% of French women want to be old-fashioned, stay-at-home-mothers. Can't find it anymore, unfortunately. The numbers are probably skewed (as they always are), but there's a conservative trend also under women.
In a reply further down OP mentions that role models play a role in this divide. I've noticed there's a lot more conservative role models than liberal role models targeting men. Is there a liberal counterpart to Andrew Tate, for example? Admittedly this just might be my colored perception from existing in a bubble.
There's really no 'liberal' person with Tate's reach. If there were, you'd know of them.
I can assist with some non-political masculinity people/groups though:
1) Far and away: Brett and Kate McKay. They run https://www.artofmanliness.com/ and have for over a decade now. The articles are decidedly non-political and mostly non-religious. The back catalog is huge. The podcast is quite good and consistent.
2) Esquire Magazine: A bit of a lad-mag still. But the articles are mostly men's interest and on current events. The long form articles, going back decades, are gold. You're not going to find better journalism going on men's issues.
3) Russ Roberts: Running the econtalk podcast since 2006, https://www.econlib.org/econtalk/. Though very much not centered on men's issues, he does a very good job of separating out the issues of the guests he has and going slowly through it all. Between him and the McKays, they are the only podcast hosts I know of that actually read the books of the guests that they have on before the podcast (please let me know of others!).
4) Your local men's bible/torah/koran study group, scout troop, sports league, holy order of the water buffalo, etc.: Bit cheeky here, but they deserves a shout out. If you want healthy male conversation and groups, your local area men's groups, largely defined, are the best bet. The McKays go into this a lot more, but the gist is that men form gang as a basic unit and you have to play into that underlying structure.
Largely speaking, good male role models are going to be harder to find and more local. That kinda relates to the way that men relate with each other. Bad ones are going to be all over the place and very loud about it, like so many drunks. The good ones are more silent and take time to develop, like so much scotch.
Public figures, such as politicians, business leaders, etc. can and have served as role models. Now it's considered with it to show disdain for morality and empathy, or at best not mention it, and to demonstrate unpredictability and disruption. Look at Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, for example.
When has Biden provided that kind of leadership? With the obvious exception of Trump, even the worst of presidents provided it before. Where are at least some business leaders? Look at the people running Silicon Valley and Wall Street - either silent (Tim Cook, etc.) or disruptive and amoral (Musk, Altman, Thiel, Dimon, too many to mention).
The good people are failing young men (and women) by hiding and not offering an alternative, healthy perspective.
As another comment pointed out, in the USA the men stayed roughly where they were in how they answered the questions, and the women got more liberal.
In the UK, both got more liberal, but women more so.
So maybe you shouldn't be looking for conservative role models with a male audience, but liberal female role models?
The article mentions #MeToo as a driver. Maybe social media has allowed liberal voices to reach audiences they were previously excluded from reaching via the mass media, in the same but opposite way that people worry about far-right/fascist messaging reaching young men?
> Is there a liberal counterpart to Andrew Tate, for example?
There are plenty of non-crazy male role models. (Most successful public figures, I’d argue, trimmed at the most controversial.) The problem is they’ve largely abandoned the mantel of masculinity. Which is a problem, because it’s a core part of our humanity—you can’t repress it away.
So the right has been able to run wild with the term, which lead to a backlash labelling any expression of masculinity as toxic. Which is bullshit. But what’s also bullshit is the notion that whining instead of doing, throwing hissy fits and kicking those who are down is somehow masculine, which is the current pitch à la Tate et al.
What these influencers like Tate do not want to tell you is that masculinity can be considered as toxic for other reasons as well. For example 'toxic masculinity' burdens men with unreasonable expectations.
Hard to blame "masculinity" for that when the problematic expectations are largely coming from women. Often in an entirely inadvertent way, but this does not make them any less real or consequential to the men themselves.
Yeah but masculinity is also a good ideal to strive for, for you know, roughly half of the population.
The key is that it's not the only ideal men (or women !) can strive for, and there are people blurring the lines, which is absolutely fine.
I find Tate to be absolutely repugnant, and he clearly represent some of worst aspect of what 'masculinity' is associated to, but to his credits he also represent strength, assertiveness, drive, and even spirituality (with his recent conversion), which are values that aren't found in a lot of other place not associated with 'conservative' nowadays.
Shaun King, no? Or do you mean female feminists, of which there are a lot, including the more traditional Martina Navratilova and JK Rowling who get drowned by newer voices.
WWF/E (whatever its called) wrestling is sometimes disgusting, but on the other hand it's an outlet for your hormones as you enter adulthood. Of course, there is a segment that does not let it go once they enter adulthood and responsibility. But, unlike previous generations people today loath assuming responsibility and prefer others to provide for them while they work things out into late adulthood.
This is far more a consequence of the problem. These other social problems are not fixed, are causing the divide, men become conservative and thusly the role models arrive.
the liberal counterparts like Greta thunburg, bernie sanders, aoc, noam chomsky, justin trudeau, rachel maddow?
Social groups are becoming increasingly fragmented and driven apart by social media. It’s well known that people from different political tribes receive irreconcilably different visions of the world. Why wouldn’t the same fracture happen across gender as well?
> However, it turns out that Fox News has been more damaging to our society than any video game
I would expand it and say that 24/7 news channels in general like Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC that are doing irreparable damage by pushing on sided narratives and demonizing their fellow citizens.
> I've lost relationships with my mother, my uncles, my cousins, numerous former coworkers and two of my neighbors as a direct result of those individuals being exposed to Fox News.
Why do you blame Fox News when the bigger common denominator is you? How do you react to people who believe different things than you do?
Fox News didn't come into being till the late mid 90s. And didn't become a force till later. Music "Dangers" were espoused by the PRMC at the time, spearheaded by the Gores (who you know, are/were democrats).
In addition, you have had colleges and universities who are predominantly run by left-leaning faculty and administration, some moderate and some extreme. So it's not a right-wing pull only.
While I think this analysis is spot on, there are other somewhat lesser discussed factors that go into the general worsening of the "war of the sexes".
1. Massively impacted endocrine systems worldwide leading to massive drops in average sperm counts, male testosterone rates, and huge amounts of estrogen and related chemicals leading to far younger average puberties for women.
2. Further economic and social stratification between men and women over technology choices. Very real anti-green bubble discrimination and strong social pressure to use apple products. It's a meme in zoomer communities about android users not being allowed to show their phones until the third date as the social repercussions of your partner knowing you have an android are very serious. Notably this trend has caught on even in Samsung's backyard: South Korea. Even in SK, having an android phone is unsexy, uncool, and users will be stigmatized for not having the "best" (iphone). SK may be the most vain country on earth.
3. AI girlfriend/AI Waifu is here today. Such technologies will only further fan the flames of the gender wars. Women seem more happy alone than with partners they hate, so I think women will be on balance happy to see increasing amounts of "undesirable" men simply opting out and embracing AI relationships.
This really isn't that surprising - as has been discussed many times here - young men in particular are being badly affected by modern cultural mores especially in the relationship games dominated by digital services.
Add into that the hyper-masculine voices that often correctly identify these issues while prescribing sometime toxic solutions in a public space that otherwise denies their suffering it's inevitable that ideological divides will develop.
The problems will continue as mainstream media grudgingly notes the consequences while sticking it's head in the sand as to the causes as it has done for years.
The data for the US shows young men in the US staying relatively around the center after a brief left shift in '08, but young women have skewed far to the left. So the gap shouldn't have much to do with the material conditions of men, in the US at least.
Or, that same data could be use to show that women have stayed relatively around the center and men of skewed far to the right. After all, "the center" is not an absolute objectively defined concept.
>> The data for the US shows young men in the US staying relatively around the center after a brief left shift in '08, but young women have skewed far to the left. So the gap shouldn't have much to do with the material conditions of men, in the US at least.
> Or, that same data could be use to show that women have stayed relatively around the center and men of skewed far to the right. After all, "the center" is not an absolute objectively defined concept.
I would assume any study of that data worth being called as such would have put all its measurements on some standard scale to determine who actually moved.
"The center" may not be an "objectively" defined concept, but "men stayed the same" and "women moved" can be quantified objectively.
No, but given two points in time, one can determine which are the center, left, and right views at each point, and see how much each group moved from those and at what direction.
That is, the center/left/right doesn't have to be an "absolute objectively defined concept".
That "what is center" can change over time is irrelevant. To see if people moved to the left or right compared to, say, the 90s, you just need to know what was the center baseline in the 90s. The comparison is relative.
The left is defined as moving. That's what "progressive" means.
For 100 years there was a clear pattern where the center adopted the views of the left about 20 years after the left did, and the right about 20 years after the center.
>The left is defined as moving. That's what "progressive" means
It's a little more complicated than that. Progressive and left can coincide in some cases, but they're not the same thing. Left ideas were often deemed "regressive", both in the economic and social domains.
In fact, according to Marx himself, capitalism (the essense of the "right" in European terms) is a revolutionary movement itself, which breaks down all established traditional order and social conventions.
And inversely, leftish causes, were often considered as anti-progress: the protection of workers from automation, environmental issues ("tree-huggers"), protesting against GMOs or nuclear power, celebrating native cultures, and of course protesting modernity and consumer society (a massive theme in the 60s and 70s leftist movements).
And of course in the 19th century, a huge number of leftist intellectuals were Romantics or close - against the rise of industry and alienation.
The reality is that the "progressivist" element, an inherently capitalistic dynamic (historically only partially shared with some parts of the left), has increasingly eaten up the folksy elements of the left, to the point that the modern left is mostly an upper middle class movement.
It never held all that much. The 'progressive' movement used to support eugenics as far late as the 1960s in some places. And economic freedom used to be seen as a conservative value exclusively prior to the 1980s and 1990s, but today it has contributed to lifting billions of people out of poverty, and many on the "neo-liberal" left support it. More recently, the left is also slowly moving towards supporting a preference for skilled over unskilled immigration to protect vulnerable and marginalized citizens' jobs and reduce concerns over social frictions, something that used to only be a talking point for conservatives.
The studies are of partisan lean over a relatively small number of years. The parties aren't that different than they were in 2008, but in the US young women are far more likely to vote for democratic candidates and to be more strident in that choice than at any point in time since data has been collected. Young men are now slightly less likely to vote for the democratic party than 15 years ago.
I’m not talking about the Overton Window. I mean specifically in the US based on survey data, young men vote about like they did 15 years ago, and women on average are much more likely to vote for the left leaning party. That’s all I mean.
I already knew about this, old graphs and it's going to get much worse for about 6-9 years. Completely predictable and understandable. SK is getting there sooner obviously. I wonder what Japan's latest data looks like, not good I bet. Like OP points out, this isn't a divide on gender related issues.
Most recent polling from angus reid says Canada is similar to Germany but much more conservative, but same amount of divide. Roughly a 15% lead for conservatives with women. Canada is a unique case where women have moved conservative already because of he-who-must-not-be-named. I'm pretty confident we will fix the problem in about 3-4 years? Hopefully.
The remarkable thing about this issue is that this isn't sustainable but you're not really allowed to talk about it. Why is the only place you can discuss this on twitter?
there are some probabilities or implications to figure as well. I expect SK will uncensor their internet in due course. Not a certainty though.
Something a democracy must have is open free discussions in order sort out your beliefs. Sometimes you have to talk about painful subjects. I am 100% egalitarian, but the discussion has to be had. The societal rift is growing and it's really bad.
When issues are censored though, everyone just sits there dumbfounded and unsure why it's even happening because nobody is talking about it. There is no right or wrong, it's fine for women to become progressive.
OP calls it negative polarisation and drops the hashtag. I'm shocked this thread hasn't been flagged and disallow the discussion.
Based on the chart, something very drastic happened in the 2010-2020 decade. Major changes in that period include always connected smartphones, social media, a financial crisis, streaming services, ecommerce, ongoing digitalization of just about everything.
Seems to me that the part about increasingly inhabiting different spaces is likely true, even outside echo chambers men and women seem to have segregated socially acceptable interests that group us all into separate areas, both online and irl. Plus the whole death of the third place that people keep going on and on about, and less buying power to hang out in the pay-to-exist places.
With covid slamming us all headfirst into total isolation, and now work from home continuing it I would say the odds are very likely that this continues to accelerate exponentially because it's a feedback loop. The more time we spend apart, the less we have in common. Add today's chatbots to the mix that people will be talking to instead of real humans to relieve some of their loneliness and we've got a real problem.
Seriously, political self-identification is nearly meaningless. Drill down into actual current issues and you get a much, much better picture of what people really believe.
I don't think they must be uniform internationally. A big political gender gap opening up where one was not before is notable, even if the specific disagreements of the gaps differ.
That doesn’t mean we can’t broadly observe a spectrum in many contexts between traditional/conservative and liberal/progressive. Even if some of the facts and priorities change between contexts.
Did you actually read the article or at least the twitter thread? The interesting point isn't "two political ideologies" it is the answer to the questions.
Are you just caught up on this or do you have a issue with the questions and responses?
2 party systems aren't normal in most of the world. even in a western centric view that's not true... I'm struggling to see what leads you to say such an extreme idea as this.
I don't know what "liberal" and "conservative" mean in these diagrams, but one could argue that if the average woman desires to date upwards, then that would create an incentive for women to push for more liberal relationships while most men would benefit from conservative values like monogamous marriage to prevent a few billionaires from monopolising dating, too.
"This is also the result of right-wingers being the only ones to show understanding for young men whose experience simply does not fit the narrative of a patriarchal society built around their needs.
If they are looking for guidance, influencers give them a clear path with videos, books and articles. The rules are mundane: exercise, eat healthily and don't watch porn all day. But when you have nowhere else to turn, this becomes a revelation."
Men drifted to the right due to a vacuum. I'm reasoning from a European perspective but the pattern is fairly universal.
In the 80s-90s, almost all men were progressive. The progressive movement was a labor movement fighting for the plight of the lower class which largely consisted of blue collar men. There was ample room to improve the conditions of these men, thus the politics and the demographics align.
Let's pause for a moment here to consider the implication: men are not innately right-wing or conservative.
As of the 90s, the progressive movement dramatically shifted away from working class men to target other groups. Women joined the workforce which rightfully needed attention. Minorities/immigrants. Teachers and other government workers. Pretty much everybody but (white)(blue-collar) men.
Then globalization happened, as well as extensive labor immigration. Both trends have dramatically affected the economic status of these men. Where before non-college educated men had ample access to a tough but honorable job in blue-collar that would earn enough to start a family, now they're in the lower ranks. The underclass.
So not only where these men politically de-emphasized (or even totally abandoned), also economically. And to finish it off, there's the cultural abandonment. A cynical and hostile view of men.
A lot of people fail to acknowledge the above degradation of men's status or even believe it's a good thing. What they fail to realize is that the "patriarchy" concerns the top ranks. Most men are not in the top or in any position of influence at all. Men in the working class, specifically in rural areas, and other sub groups have most definitely taken a huge beating, politically, economically and culturally.
That type of abandonment by progressive politics is what created the vacuum. They feel alienated and not represented, hated even. They may vote conservative out of spite, without even supporting the beliefs. A recent poll of young conservatives showed that the vast majority in fact do not support dialing back abortion rights.
The progressive movement should start caring about men. You can do two things at a time, it's not zero-sum. In fact, it's a no-brainer. Men failing is very bad for women, bettering the plight of men directly benefits women.
I do think mens rights advocates have some valid points, but especially with the blue collar stuff I think most of it is just a classic case of equality feeling like oppression to the privileged. High school grad white men had access to high status jobs because others were excluded, especially foreigners. Now theyre not, so their jobs arent as good. Is the solution really to favor uneducated white men over everyone else again? Or maybe embrace the fact that life generally sucks, and try to improve it for everyone, even if that means some continue to suffer.
I agree that the patriarchy does not favor uneducated white men, but it used to, and I think thats a large reason theyre angry.
There is, obviously, a lot of stuff tied up in this data; but, when you look at the current gender data on higher-ed students and graduates, and the historical trend of higher education attendance and graduation with liberal ideological affiliation, then this isn't super surprising.
(One could also argue that critiques of neo-liberalism (an amorphous term to be sure) have also gone "mainstream." Yet while in higher-ed those critiques are often synonymous with a left-leaning worldview, we're seeing a critique from the "other side," the non-higher educated demographic.)
It's probably related to lack of education because fewer and fewer men are going to college, read, and make a decent living. Furthermore, right-wing populism led by so-called "strongmen" seems appealing to emotional voters who choose not too see the bigger picture or reality, and lack a foundation of principles or knowledge. Instead, it's easier to revert to conspiracy theories, hate, anger, and insurrections.
The problem with these kinds of statistical snippets that papers like the FT produce, is that they are fishing for some kind of shocking/surprising easy to understand finding.
That doesn't mean that such statistics and charts actually show anything useful in a scientific sense.
The problem is that the information is presented as a scientific "truth", and many people don't have the understanding to know that all statistics and analysis involve human input (e.g. which tests to use, how to visualise, which data to exclude etc etc), and that this input introduces biases, whether accidentally or intentionally.
Yes we all know it's possible to lie with statistics. What are your criticisms of this article in particular? If you don't have any then you're just baselessly casting aspersions.
I don't have access to the article - my comment was about the figures specifically, as they were posted on Twitter (where I can see them. I don't have an FT subscription).
I'm critical/suspicious whenever a complex topic is presented as if it is apparently very simple, e.g. when people's political opinions apparently clearly follow a general rule across different countries and cultures (as in this case).
Without any evidence to back it up, I can imagine a different set if questions leading to different outcomes. Ideally, there would be a different newspaper who would set out to show that Women are more conservative (or some other different finding to the FT's), and the we'd be able to decide which method we find more compelling.
Having different opinions published by outlets that have the same readership is how scientific findings are disseminated and judged (e.g. two different theories both published by Nature, and read by Nature readers). In the case of newspapers, people of one opinion tend to read one subset of newspapers, and people of another opinion the other, which means that the kind of weighing up of evidence doesn't happen in the same way.
Anyway, my comments were made in good faith, in the spirit of someone just saying what they think, as is the way with HN. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
I'm not saying it's clickbait in the sense of "this one amazing trick to shrink belly fat", but it still trying to show something surprising (people find graphs showing things they know boring).
Don't over estimate the scientific/statistical understanding of FT readers. They are just normal people. (I know a few of them.)
It’s a pretty short article, people much better informed on the topic than you spent a long time pursuing that data. To smirk and say “your data doesn’t apply” is pretty low effort and reddity, imo.
Why comment at all if you don’t have the time to read 400 words?
> people much better informed on the topic than you spent a long time pursuing that data.
People who want to flatten political ideologies and place millions of people into preconceived ideological US-centric buckets are not "much better informed" on any topic. They're just paid parrots shoving propaganda.
Look at the issues discussed: gender roles, race/immigration. Conservative means traditional gender roles, immigration as a negative/threat. Liberal means the opposite. For me at least that's comprehensible and unambiguous outside the US as well
These days traditional gender roles are assumed to be some inescapable part of one's identity, that can only be altered by comparatively extreme means such as medical treatment. Sure, there are some "non-binary" folks who see through that whole worldview but they are a tiny minority. And they're only allowed that if they're OK with being stamped with some weird "third gender" role label in turn.
> traditional gender roles are assumed to be some inescapable part of one's identity, that can only be altered by comparatively extreme means such as medical treatment
I wouldn’t consider anyone who thinks you can only change your gender with surgery a liberal.
Non-surgical treatment is still treatment, and often viewed as some sort of gateway step towards such things as surgery. Even something as insubstantial as "social transition" is still thoroughly medicalized as a matter of basic worldview.
> Even something as insubstantial as "social transition" is still inherently medicalized as a matter of basic worldview
This redefines medicine to include literally all human activity, from sartorial preferences to how one crosses their legs. So sure, if we render this term meaningless we can apply it.
It's not us redefining "sartorial preferences or how one crosses their legs" as such matters, but those who push the whole worldview of "gender identity" as something relevant to these things and otherwise unchangeable. Toy aisles in retail stores are supposed to be non-gendered, but kids are being told in school that if they like "gender discordant" toys this means that their "inborn gender" is not the one they think it is and they must seek proper "reassignment".
> kids are being told in school that if they like "gender discordant" toys this means that their "inborn gender" is not the one they think it is and they must seek proper "reassignment"
Source?
For what it’s worth, I’d call that hard leftist. Not liberal. In the same way I’d call someone insisting on traditional gender labels right wing, not merely conservative. (The latter applying that labelling preference to one’s own children, only.)
And returning to the proximate point, none of that is medicine.
Certainly the dictionary definition of "conservative" implies an adherence to tradition, but that doesn't mean what big-C Conservatives believe is actually traditional. "Traditional gender roles" are often newer people think and certainly aren't consistent across the entire world.
The last time I read something by JBM, he had said that "people who don't have a passport (a sign that they have not recently travelled abroad) were more likely to vote Brexit"
To me, he was implying that ignorance of other lands led them to vote Brexit, but I think the more important underlying factor is that passports and travel cost money.
So to return to my point, I too am suspicious of the statistics that JBM shows.
As with all statistics, they are crafted to push a particular opinion.
Link should have been to the article then. I'm not spending my time on looking up a study that looks flawed from the onset. Please don't make comments that don't add to the discussion.
> Patriarchy and white supremacy are inextricably intertwined.
I don't want to get into the topic deeply - but this quote displays to me you have not traveled much outside of the U.S.
China, Japan, Central America, portions of the Middle East, Northern Africa cultures as a start display Patriarchy heavily.... without the "lets link it to white people" effects. It is fun for some people to dump on the U.S., but once one actually deeply looks at other cultures, you realize Patriarchy is a human issue - Not a U.S. issue
I employ all "U.S. bashers" to travel more. You'll come back humbled, and a bit more thankful for where the U.S. is, even if we are not perfect
More generally there's an in group and an out group. In Europe and the Americas (including South and Central America) it's people who can largely be described as "white". Yes this applies to Latino and Hispanic countries (eg Brazil [1]).
As for South Korea, "whiteness" still plays a big role eg "looking white" [2].
Japan is essentially a monoculture. You're not Japanese if you're not ethnically japanese. How is that not "white supremacy" in a different form?
China is similar with the supremacy of the Han Chinese [3].
The Middle East very much has racial supremacy. Look at how all the imported workers aret reated from the Phillipines and India. Or the treatment of the Kurds. In Saudi Arabia, Arabs sit at the top. In Iran, it's ethnic Persians.
And this is before we even get started on Israel and Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews and of course ethnic Arabs (Palestinians including Israeli Arabs).
Which means “patriarchy and white supremacy” are not “inextricably intertwined.” Exhibit A for this not being race determined: how we keep redefining “whiteness” in America based on whoever is rich. To the point, today, that White + Asian is a common category. (Or how we cleave Hispanic from non-Hispanic Whites.)
Patriarchy is intertwined with wealth and power, but in a demonstrably extricable way. Conflating it with racism is a terrific way to halt any progress towards dismantling it, and for good reason.
I do not disagree with you... but calling the issue "white supremacy" is misleading. The examples you mention are bias, bigotry, and racism applied to each culture.
Chinese, Japanese, or Hispanic, or Middle Easterners would never consider themselves "white". It is a term, where people want to lump U.S. whites together in the U.S. wholly as bad, and suggest they're evil in the U.S. and now globally.
People in the U.S. just happen to be historically white, just like Chinese just happen to be historically of Chinese descent, etc.
> And this is before we even get started on Israel and Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews and of course ethnic Arabs (Palestinians including Israeli Arabs).
Ashkenazi Jews (the in group) tend to vote more liberal than Sephardic/Mizrahi Jews. Israeli Arabs parties, while associated with the left due to their position on Palestine, are extremely conservative (e.g. pushing for conversion therapy).
You also don't need to go back very far in history to see how white patriarchal empires dominated/shaped most (all?) of these regions and countries for centuries.
I would submit, that white patriarchal opinion is due to the time period you are sampling coupled with,in this case, mobility by boat to allow a more global reach.
There were Mongols, Kush / Egyptian in Africa, Inca, Navajo in North America, etc etc - pulling from large and small groups. Even within a group, the India Caste system did the same within a population
> You understand there are many societys in this world, in fact the majority of them, which would conteract that statement?
No. The entire world can be assumed to be like America, so Americans don't need to really think about it. Everything foreign is properly understood by mapping it to familiar American concepts and obsessions.
>The optimist in me would like to think of this as what I call "end stage patriarchy". I try not to think this signals just worse things to come.
This is for sure a view you could have. Nothing wrong with that.
>This is of course incomplete but I attribute the rise of communities like MRA (mens rights activists), red and black pilled, regression in the access to reproductive medical care (abortion and contraception) and so on as a reaction to this power shift.
Do you think we should continue censoring these groups as hate speech?
>It's easy to become a pessimist but honestly I'm hopeful that current reactionary trends are a sign that things are getting better. GenZ seems to be breaking the trend that voters get more conservative as they get older and that is a good thing.
OP addressed this point. The sexual divide is greatest in gen Z.
I've actually seen one of the effects of this among my single friends who have observed that conservatives now put "non-political" on their dating profiles because if they put conservative they get no matches. But since that's obvious now non-political is "okay, so conservative." The best part about this is that one of my single friends is conservative herself and won't even match with conservative men.
I think it's great honestly. Women might not hold a lot of political power directly but mate selection is a powerful motivator for change.
These graphs terrify me because while women may have a choice for partner selection at this time we know it's a slippery slopr towards a highly conservative society where women have almost every choice removed. We have this today in the removal of abortion rights, and the extreme behavior is exhibited in niche communities such as Orthodox Judaism, rural Amish-type communities where women are not educated, and, increasingly, evangelic communities in the developed world, most visible in South Korea So, to see men heading to the conservative side of the dance floor is a warning to those of us who thought that the fight for liberty is a one-, time event.
Preach. This kind of shift is one of my worries too but. But since this isn't a "movement" in any real sense and it's just individual women choosing for themselves the tide is gonna be what it's gonna be and we have to deal with that fallout.
> because if they put conservative they get no matches
Why is political affiliation on a dating app?
> one of my single friends is conservative herself and won't even match with conservative men
Have you asked her why?
To me, someone proudly putting a conservative political affiliation on a dating profile raises safety issues not related to their political views, but to their choice to put them there as a marker of their identity.
> Women might not hold a lot of political power directly
IDK, it's just one of the basic things that on your profile. It includes stuff like height, age, if you smoke, if you drink, your religious affiliation, your profession. And since it's such a strong signal, folks will unmatch on that alone, it seems like a good question to determine compatibility.
> Have you asked her why?
Oh absolutely, she talks at length about it. She started out not really caring about political affiliation because she's a conservative with a friend group of mostly liberals and can get along with anyone but then all the conservative men instant dq'd themselves either in the chat or on the first date by demonstrating a quote "frightening lack of respect for women."
> Wat.
I know! It's messed up. We really should do something about it. I mean look at this [1] in 2023 women just got to the 30% mark in legislative positions.
At some point in the past I moderated a decently sized subreddit (~100k subscribers). At the time it seemed like everyone really cared a lot about politics.
I made the conscious decision to step out of it, and shutting off my online presence. Live a bit more in the real world, so to say.
Turns out in real life, people care a lot less about politics than in online cesspools.
[FWIW: I don't read Reddit or Twitter or any of the rest. HN is as close to online humanity as I can tolerate]
> Turns out in real life, people care a lot less about politics than in online cesspools.
Sure, if you ask it that way.
But if you ask them how they feel about almost anything, their opinion will be shaped by the politicization of music, sports, food, weather, child rearing, education, the economy, their town, the helicopter on Mars, etc.
These things are politicized and the way people think about them is not authentic, but political.
Not all individual people, not all individual cases. But anyone who pretends that politics is not front and center in their belief systems is either deluding themselves, or truly exceptional. Probably the former.
There is a huge distance in between "my opinions and worldview is informed, to an extent, by the political climate" and "I live and breathe politics all the time, and it is front and center of every discussion I have with everyone"
I have friends on every corner of the political spectrum. My wife is a lot more conservative than I am. This was never an issue. There is a huge amount of topics where our interests intersect anyway. "There is so much more in the universe".
Right. Because we are privileged and reasonable people!
Privileged by the fact that our existence, and our choices, do not raise the ire of our community. Some of our choices are tailored to fit that community of course.
Reasonable because we believe that the existence of others, and their choices, are not things we need to have opinions on, unless they are directly affective of our well-being.
But this is not true for everyone. Outside of our quadrant, things get complicated quickly.
Some people do not have the privilege of being culturally unexciting. And some people do not come by reasonableness naturally.
I'm not saying you can't go through your day without thinking politically. I'm saying that there is a politicization angle on everything except the most mundane. And outside of our quadrant, this can create real life-affective friction.
And, back to the topic, this is why they put "political affiliation" on dating apps.
Yep, it's easy to be politically disinterested or not really care about the differences between different parties when your interests and way of living are protected by both of them and whoever is in office has very little effect on your life.
And it's not a bad thing or admonishment, it's a fantastic privilege that's gotta be great for your mental health.
That's a very big assumption, that the reason politics is not front and center in my life if because I am somehow privileged and that those in power protect my interests.
In truth, I am an immigrant from a poor country. I depend on a Visa to stay in my country of residence. I am an ethnical minority.
What is good for your mental health is exercising some detachment. Life is too short to waste it on things beyond your power. I prefer to focus on how I can improve my own life and the lives of those I love instead, and to spend my free time in things that make me happy.
Maybe my privilege is having the wisdom to differentiate the things I can change from the things I can't.
> Maybe my privilege is having the wisdom to differentiate the things I can change from the things I can't.
This is indeed a privilege which is available to many people who do not take advantage of it!
But it's also not available to everyone. Perhaps more relevantly, it is not the present case for everyone.
I agree with you in how I live my life, and I'm fortunate to be able to do that. Obviously I don't know you but presumably you chose to immigrate to a place (or a specific ___location in that place) where you are able to live a fairly safe life.
Some people are not there, and are not able to escape where they are. For them, the politicization of everything is existential.
...and some others politicize things because they are unhappy and hurting the people they think are hurting them makes them feel better. Or so it seems. All very unhealthy, and yes I'm speaking from an American perspective. We are not known for our strong and stable mental health.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing, I'm in no way advocating getting involved in just random politics for no reason. But if you need to actively participate in politics -- campaigning, fundraising, testifying at hearings, writing or meeting with your legislators, calling your local paper and giving interviews, collecting signatures because of policy you need or policy that is going to meaningfully harm you then you don't have the privilege to detach from those issues unless you already have other people who will stand up for you.
But obsessively following news or yelling at no one in particular on the internet about issues, I wouldn't bother either.
We're not in a world where everything is politicized. We're in a world where a bunch of very loud people politicize everything. That's not the same. In particular, a large number of people wish the "politicize everything" people would just shut up and go away and stop shoving their insanity at the rest of us.
I wish for many things. So far, this has not had a material effect on reality. But I will keep trying.
Please give me one example of a thing that is not politicized. And that some not-insubstantial percent of the population holds an opinion or belief that is truly their own vs something tribal and politicized.
I struggled to come up with an example before I made my previous post. Maybe you can do better.
The car I drive is not politicized. (For some people it is. They choose a pickup or an EV to signal that they belong to a tribe. I just pick a car because I want something reliable that meets my needs. 18-year-old Toyota Camry, if you're wondering.)
My to-do list for this weekend is not politicized, even though preparations for doing my taxes is on the list. My taxes are not politicized - I pay them regardless of what administration is in power, and I feel pretty much the same about paying them.
What I'm having for lunch is not politicized. It's just stuff that I like, that was pretty easy to put in a lunch sack.
My wife likes watching birds. I like watching trains. I don't think either of those are politicized.
What programming languages I like are not politicized.
And so it goes, through topic after topic that makes up my life.
I really am less a sheep than you think. I actually don't always agree with my tribe, and my tribe is less political than you think. (Even what I think of science is not politicized, and I don't fit neatly into a "tribe" on the topic. And I deplore the tendency to politicize science.)
"Everything is political" only if you view everything through a political lens. I don't. It's a really crummy, narrow lens to have to look at everything through.
You give some interesting examples. But you acknowledge that some of those choices, made differently, could be politicized.
That's the issue. Choose culturally "ordinary" and you're good. Choose "unexpected" and you take your chances. Among reasonable people, your chances are good. There are a lot of unreasonable people out there.
The original question was "why is political affiliation asked on a dating app?". To me, the answer is simple: life is highly politicized and while individuals will always have some nuance in their beliefs, stereotypes are real and legitimate as filtering criteria.
I do not mean to imply that humans cannot be better. Just that they frequently are not.
Apparently, millions of young men have simply checked out. They're not in school and missing from the work force. Another statistic I came across: 45% of young men (18-24) have never approached a girl in their life.
They're isolating themselves. They're not bettering themselves, or competing. They're out.
I mean this sincerely, what's the alternative? This isn't a situation where women are organizing or just being spiteful and passing up perfectly good datable men to play political games, these men are genuinely considered undatable.
I don't have an alternative, I was just sharing an observation. It was implied that this group of men is "forced" to better themselves or else be locked out of dating and family formation.
A growing amount of men go for the "or else" part. So it doesn't look like a powerful motivator for change.
We have to be accurate about the statistic. It said that 45% had never approached a girl/woman. Not that 45% is permanently and actively avoiding having a relationship by choice.
For sure they should become more active, but there may be societal trends contributing to the statistic: increased isolation, limited shared spaces, dating largely moving to apps, poor or no role models, fear of rejection, etc.
The implication that you arent getting dates because of politics isn't true at all. But I'm not blaming dating sites at all, that's not the cause of the problem.
>I think it's great honestly. Women might not hold a lot of political power directly but mate selection is a powerful motivator for change.
Women hold as much political power as men, and men are becoming more conservative. The 'change' is toward more conservative. That 'powerful motivator' is the opposite of your prediction.
Women are historical record highs level of depressed. Social science calls it the 'female happiness paradox'
But it's not a paradox at all. It's kind of outrageous they label it a paradox.
From the study:
>Across a number of studies, there is increasing evidence that men’s wellbeing has been improving relative to women’s whether that is measured using negative or positive affect variables and the gap has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns.
Men are doing BETTER.
That 'powerful motivator' is the opposite of what you think.
Many women will profess outwardly and even on their tinder profiles (increasingly the majority way people date) a strong preference for a partner who is politically egalitarian yet in their actual mate selection they will act like eugenicist fascists. "6 feet, 6 inches, 6 figures". It should be no one's surprise when the average height and phallic size of men continues to grow over time, especially throughout the western world, given how strong that the selection signals are from women.
This is scary for those with a progressive world view, since conservatives try to monopolize masculinity. "Working out" as a man, being a "gym bro" etc are things that are lightly conservatively coded. Effeminate egalitarian nerds in American media are depicted constantly as being physically dominated by authoritarian and tyrannical bullies. Women will increasingly find conservative politics enticing by it's transgressive nature despite outwardly professing preferences against it. This is why black men in clubs tend to do well with white women despite dating app data showing systemic dating discrimination against black men.
In a world where your great grandparent has double the testosterone rates, more than double the sperm counts, and significantly better fertility rates than their young peers, I stand by what I said unironically. Chances are also good that their great grandparents were getting laid far more often too!
Also, there's been a lot written even in other liberal communities admitting that modern conservatism has essentially replaced the old "counterculture" that was previously held by hippies. This is because of a mainstreamification of "being woke" and of related ideology. Today, an honest to god "live in the forest off the grid type" who tries to live a conservative rugged man ideal is peak counterculture.
It just occurred to me that it may have something to do with the "crystal generation" thing: young people today are less tolerant and unwilling to compromise.
My wife is quite "conservative " with right leaning values (for mexican) while I myself am pretty socialist/left leaning. But we leaned to live and enjoy our differences and opinions.
So that's the thing, in the US "right leaning" and "actually votes Republican and actively supports the Republican Party" are night and day differences. Because moderate conservatives (or libertarian-conservatives) who don't care for Republican's weird crusades against abortion, trans people, blue lives matter, anti-vaxx bullshit, climate change denial and whatever the next not-actually-realted-to-conservatism thing is and just want regular-ass conservative politics a la Romney, McCain, DeWine are totally alienated.
Among my friends and coworkers those right leaning people have just started calling themselves liberal but not progressive and voting Democrat because that's now actually closer to their views than Republicans and they don't want to be associated with MAGA.
No offense, but could it be that you aren't as extreme or different from each other as you think? It's not like there weren't plenty of extremist young men willing to die and kill for socialist or fascist ideology during World War 2 or the Spanish Civil War; or, going back further, for the various reactionary and radical ideologies during the French Revolution. Perhaps your generation was an outlier in being less extreme.
https://www.ft.com/content/29fd9b5c-2f35-41bf-9d4c-994db4e12...
I thought the UK graph was incredible. How did such a left-leaning country end up with such an opposite government for 14 years? The answer is the voting system, first past the post. Boris Johnson won total control of the UK with 43% of the vote.