Why are younger men so right wing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men are naturally conservative. Its no more complicated than that.

This is false.

For the entire modern era, men were inclined to lean left than women, until around 20 years ago.

Who was voting conservatives into office before women had the vote?

Who was voting liberals into office before women had the vote? Hint: WOMEN DID NOT HAVE THE VOTE then. So it was men voting liberals into office.

What liberals? Lincoln for example was progressive, pro-labor, anti-slavery, pro-federal power. The liberal side of 1860 and 1864 and so on, through Teddy Roosevelt, progressive Bull Moose. Many men supported progressive causes like being pro-labor and so on, enough to win national elections without women having the vote. Whoever told you men are supposed to be conservative or were historically always conservative is ignorant of history.

The Confederacy wasn’t exactly a hotbed of liberalism. And men voted conservatives into office prior to 1920. Are you trying to claim that liberals won every election ever until Calvin Coolidge?

The point you're missing is that prior to Womens Suffrage we had quite a few elections involving a more conservative candidate and a more progressive / liberal candidate, and in many of those instances the progressive / liberal candidate won. And they won because men voted for them.

And to your point, the Confederacy was the conservative side. Confederacy = preserve existing social order, maintain rigid racial hierarchy, small government etc vs Union = pro-labor, anti-slavery, progressive, less social strictures, more infrastructure and bigger government, and so on. The labels "Republican" and "Democrat" back then had virtually nothing to do with what they stand for today but the actual values and ideas can be easily mapped to conservative vs liberal / progressive.

As for why the party labels became meaningless, read up on the Southern Strategy and some of the other history of how those tides have changed over the years.

…..Okay? You keep wandering away from your original point and not definitively proving anything, other than that 19th century men were sometimes liberal and sometimes conservative.

Wasn't my point at all. It was a response to the PP who falsely claimed this:

Anonymous wrote:Men are naturally conservative. Its no more complicated than that.

Pretty abundantly clear that this is absolutely not the case.

DP, that wasn’t my post. But it’s equally false to claim that all men naturally lean left, given that historically, men have defended the status quo and been gatekeepers of who has access to power. If they were naturally left, there would have been much less bloodshed and suffering when women and blacks fought for civil rights. (Many women vocally opposed desegregation too, but by and large men were the decision makers and the ones holding the firehoses).

Are men more left wing now than 100 years ago? I’d say in general yes, but at the same time, those on the right have moved even further right. It’s complicated and probably divided along class lines, or rural/urban lines.

Nobody here ever said men naturally lean left. There was only a claim that they lean right. The reality of it is that men vote on both sides of the spectrum.

Um, we can read:

This is false.

For the entire modern era, men were inclined to lean left than women, until around 20 years ago.

But, let’s just agree to agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps your son likes racism and misogyny and xenophobia and transphobia.

+1

[Anonymous]

Uh oh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In recent years, Democrats really went out of their way to ostracize and demonize young straight white men. It's not a surprise some turned toward the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is a very little tent these days.

How so exactly? We are late 30’s (so not “young”) and DH does not feel ostracized. He has know idea why other white men like Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh oh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In recent years, Democrats really went out of their way to ostracize and demonize young straight white men. It's not a surprise some turned toward the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is a very little tent these days.

How so exactly? We are late 30’s (so not “young”) and DH does not feel ostracized. He has know idea why other white men like Trump.

Yes I hear this a lot. And I too would like to know how young men were ostracized?

Was it:
-By sharing educational and employment opportunties?
-Asking them to keep their dicks in their pants and hands to themself, unless asked to do so otherwise?
-keep their catcalls and misogynistic comments to themselves and treat people fairly? (I could tell you stories just in the last 20 years of things said to me by men IN THE WORKPLACE that would make your toes curl.)

So, do tell?

[Anonymous]

Young men and MAGA have such incredibly low self esteem. They don’t believe they have anything to offer and no woman would voluntarily live with them. So they are trying to use the laws to force others to have less rights than them. They are so insecure that they need laws to force wives to marry and and stay with them. They know they have nothing to offer on their own accord, I suppose. This is the only explanation- the underlying cause of their actions.

Men who are secure and who have something to offer don’t need laws to force women to stay with them. Women stay because they love and respect these men. And these men have male friends because other men also respect them.

If you need a law or a religion to force a woman to stay with you, you are screaming that you are not worth much.

[Anonymous]

Take a look in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

The majority of white men are going to be serfs in a year, so let’s see how they feel then.

[Anonymous]

Now the Heritage Foundation wants to create marriage boot camps, restrict porn, reduce alimony rights, and give a huge tax break to families.

Gift link; https://wapo.st/3NjnQbg

Women need to have babies, stay home, and be financially dependent on their husbands. Nothing like being trapped in a bad marriage!

[Anonymous]

People hear men being asked to do better, and automatically jump to “you hate men”, which doesn’t make sense.

Someone who really hated men would tell them never to change or grow. They’d tell them that they’re animals who can’t help forcing themselves on women. They’d convince young men that the ideal relationship is a cold, transactional power struggle and no one will ever truly love them. They’d tell them their only value is in sleeping around and using and discarding teenage virgins. They’d tell them college is for losers. They’d make them feel constantly insecure and unworthy by calling them betas and cucks and low value. They’d whip up unrealistic standards and anger at women, undermining the ability of young men to form stable, adult relationships.

Someone like, say…the hundreds of internet manosphere grifters peddling this cynical, dead end vision to young men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now the Heritage Foundation wants to create marriage boot camps, restrict porn, reduce alimony rights, and give a huge tax break to families.

Gift link; https://wapo.st/3NjnQbg

Women need to have babies, stay home, and be financially dependent on their husbands. Nothing like being trapped in a bad marriage!

Some of their ideas are bat-guano insane:

“ Heritage also suggests creating government-seeded savings accounts — similar to the “Trump accounts” in the GOP’s new tax and immigration law — for newborns that could not be redeemed until the beneficiary marries or turns 30 years old. Withdrawals from the accounts after age 30 and outside marriage would be taxed.”

Using taxpayer money as leverage to bribe people into getting married. What could possibly go wrong?

“ “child-proxy voting,” where parents could cast an extra half-vote on behalf of each of their children”

Great, let’s also have dog-proxy, cat-proxy, and houseplant-proxy voting!

(I’m surprised they didn’t propose sperm-proxy voting, so that men could each have 10 million votes)

“legally punishing adultery and “homewrecker[s]”

The cheating husbands wouldn’t be punished, of course, just the mistress…

“And it considered prohibiting home sellers from off-loading starter homes until they’ve received a legitimate offer from a married couple with children”

What??? That’s legitimately nuts.

Instead of asking WHY people don’t want to get married and have children any more, and addressing root causes, they’re trying to ham-handedly legislate mating behavior with a thousand sticks and carrots. The only thing that’s going to breed is resentment and misery, as people get pressured into marriages they don’t want just for the tax and financial incentives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son is 32 and just told me he voted for Trump three times. I’m embarrassed and feel like a failure. We raised him in a liberal environment and now he’s become radicalized

He’s not even your stereotypical trump voter or whatever. Good job in coastal city, just got engaged, owns a house, many friends. But he’s gone down this rabbit hole of right wing politics and it leaves me baffled

He’s not fooled by all the fake news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSWhatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is 32 and just told me he voted for Trump three times. I’m embarrassed and feel like a failure. We raised him in a liberal environment and now he’s become radicalized

He’s not even your stereotypical trump voter or whatever. Good job in coastal city, just got engaged, owns a house, many friends. But he’s gone down this rabbit hole of right wing politics and it leaves me baffled

He’s not fooled by all the fake news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSWhatever.

Who cares?

OP's son deserves what he gets

Which is nothing, unless he's a billionaire

He's going to get nothing and deserves it because he's stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the Heritage Foundation wants to create marriage boot camps, restrict porn, reduce alimony rights, and give a huge tax break to families.

Gift link; https://wapo.st/3NjnQbg

Women need to have babies, stay home, and be financially dependent on their husbands. Nothing like being trapped in a bad marriage!

Some of their ideas are bat-guano insane:

“ Heritage also suggests creating government-seeded savings accounts — similar to the “Trump accounts” in the GOP’s new tax and immigration law — for newborns that could not be redeemed until the beneficiary marries or turns 30 years old. Withdrawals from the accounts after age 30 and outside marriage would be taxed.”

Using taxpayer money as leverage to bribe people into getting married. What could possibly go wrong?

“ “child-proxy voting,” where parents could cast an extra half-vote on behalf of each of their children”

Great, let’s also have dog-proxy, cat-proxy, and houseplant-proxy voting!

(I’m surprised they didn’t propose sperm-proxy voting, so that men could each have 10 million votes)

“legally punishing adultery and “homewrecker[s]”

The cheating husbands wouldn’t be punished, of course, just the mistress…

“And it considered prohibiting home sellers from off-loading starter homes until they’ve received a legitimate offer from a married couple with children”

What??? That’s legitimately nuts.

Instead of asking WHY people don’t want to get married and have children any more, and addressing root causes, they’re trying to ham-handedly legislate mating behavior with a thousand sticks and carrots. The only thing that’s going to breed is resentment and misery, as people get pressured into marriages they don’t want just for the tax and financial incentives.

I guess it’s easier to do all that than have men expect to become a partner/team player in a marriage. Women must be forced into subservience.