An ideological divide is emerging between young men and women around the world
twitter.com
twitter.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-democracy
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?
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 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.
Arrow's theorem <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...> states that no voting system can be "perfect". Every electoral system can be gamed in some way to result in non-obvious results. That does not invalidate the system.
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.
- Arrow's theorem does not apply to first past the post
- Arrow's theorem does not apply to proportional representation
- Arrow's theorem only applies to ranked voting systems.
Arrow himself said about US elections (FPTP), "The first thing that I'd certainly do is go to a system where people ranked all the candidates."
So yeah… I’m still maintaining FPTP is less fair, as the evidence you supplied is not applicable.
Another divide I'll wager, and more than a little ancillary to the aforementioned ideological divide.
In this country abortion was illegal until 2020, marital rape still seems not explicitly illegal etc.
This is the question but not broken down by country, rather age. https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1750849199720030292/...
And of course your typical twitter journalists report them as being one and the same.
They're not.
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.
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.
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.
No.
To change your own mind? Absolutely.
(personally, I found voting with my feet a much more effective use of my time than attempting anything political in my home country)
Got more info on this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ishbg1AE3snak_yOTLK0hPsvy_4...
> 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.
The difference when choosing a long term mate and starting a family makes the stakes higher. Ideology will dictate customs, schooling, etc..
I do respect married folks who can vote down political lines and stay happily married. These people have a lot to learn from.
Anyways, just a counter-point, and I understand it doesn't fit everyone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jesus Christ? Or are you asking for a contemporary counterpart?
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.
Except the addies killed the streams RIP
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.
the liberal counterparts like Greta thunburg, bernie sanders, aoc, noam chomsky, justin trudeau, rachel maddow?
yikes...
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?
Pick one <https://imgur.com/0gL4oxd>
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.
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.
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.
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.
This pattern no longer holds.
Protecting jobs has always been a key left value.
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.
> 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.
(Not criticising, trying to tease out your meaning).
BTW, in the conversation below I think y'all are talking about the Overton Window without actually mentioning it.
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.
Thread is visible via Nitter, although the graph is missing from the first post
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.
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.
Are you just caught up on this or do you have a issue with the questions and responses?
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."
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 agree that the patriarchy does not favor uneducated white men, but it used to, and I think thats a large reason theyre angry.
(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.)
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.
The FT has a hard paywall. They aren’t pandering for clickbait. (The author’s tweet doesn’t even bother linking to the article.)
> many people don't have the understanding to know that all statistics and analysis involve human input
The Financial Times’ readership?
Don't over estimate the scientific/statistical understanding of FT readers. They are just normal people. (I know a few of them.)
Like Hacker News readers, who presumably need a general disclaimer about statistics. Got it.
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 think it's great honestly. Women might not hold a lot of political power directly but mate selection is a powerful motivator for change.
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
Wat.
For the majority, different political views are a dealbreaker in the USA.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/us-marriag...
> 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.
https://pewresearch.org/social-trends/fact-sheet/the-data-on...
As someone smarter than me probably said - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Or, in layman's terms, this is pure, unfiltered bullshit.
In truth, politics is not front and center of people's existence.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/us-marriag...
In a world where everything is politicized, this cannot be correct. It's just described differently.
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.
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.
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.
I did not call you a sheep.
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.
> 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.
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".
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.
And it's not a bad thing or admonishment, it's a fantastic privilege that's gotta be great for your mental health.
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.
But obsessively following news or yelling at no one in particular on the internet about issues, I wouldn't bother either.
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.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_(movement)
https://www.thecut.com/2023/03/4b-movement-feminism-south-ko...
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.
Yup, nothing could be more transgressive than (checks notes) having the political views of your great grandparents’ generation.
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.
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.
Do we draw straws?
Everyone makes their choices. If 45% of men are choosing to drop out of ever having a relationship without even trying, maybe that’s on them.
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.
A growing amount of men go for the "or else" part. So it doesn't look like a powerful motivator for change.
Lets go with south korea as they are the worst off: https://amj.kma.re.kr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&conte...
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.
What is happening in reality?
https://ifstudies.org/blog/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/05/the-rise-...
But this has a consequence. Your supports from family are less. Your ability to be a mother at 30+ vs 20+ is a huge difference.
Men don't have the same drive as women. The proverbial ticking clock.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9942082/
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.