politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think it's pretty straightforward why this happens - liberal politics as a hive mind talks to women, but it does not talk to men. Even this piece, look at the following quote.
The one case where it was at mutual abuse by both parties, they talk about Depp abusing Heard, but not Heard abusing Depp. That's why there is a divide. The problem is framed as "violence against women", instead of "domestic violence against people".
To be clear, modern society presents all people with new problems. But while generic problems like stagnating wages are being talked about as a generic issue, and women's issues get space as at least a successful special interest issue, issues disproportionately affecting men don't. This results in shitheads like Tate fleecing them and fucking up society at large as well.
And absolutely no recognition of the problem with the statement that most college students are women.
There are parity issues on both sides of the gender divide. Both can be recognized. It's not a zero-sum game.
This isn't a problematic statement, it's a statement of fact. There's no value judgment or morality associated with this statement in this article
factual, yes - but I think the point being made here is that a larger percentage of males are not being exposed to the benefits of a more expansive early adult educational experience leading to a social and cultural disconnect.
Without explanation, it can be offensive. There is no value judgment in the sentence "black people make up the vast majority of the US prison population" either.
If you don't explain why, one conclusion someone might have is women are "just smarter", and black people are "just more criminally inclined".
This is the big point that is missed by common discourse. The problem is that men have gender-specific issues too, and those are not even being acknowledged as even being valid. Domestic abuse against men doesn't exist. The fact that homelessness or suicides affect men disproportionately, or that the alienation of people from each other affect men in different ways than women, is a taboo topic, because people feel it takes away from the focus on women's rights, or worse, that men "deserve" this as some kind of "reparations" in kind for suffering.
These are absolutely not taboo topics. I've read a ton of media about these things. From where do you derive that they're "taboo?"
Look at the article being shared. It addresses the topic of men and women drifting off to different sides of the political spectrum, and all it addresses is why women tend to the left. It conveniently leaves out why men tend to the right. It even insinuates that it's because men are actually alright with supporting abusers, rapists and paedophiles while women are not. Same thing it does to the Depp-Heard case, they were both abusers, but it only mentions Depp as being one.
I'm not saying that people in general never talk about men's issues. I'm saying that the "liberal left" does not have anything for men on its agenda, and is surprised that men are being left behind by its messaging.
This is an article about women becoming much more liberal, men staying ideologically the same and the implications of that. That you would think an article about women becoming more liberal needs to focus more on men's issues is itself a reflection of patriarchal thinking, whether or not that's your intention. There are plenty of articles covering men's issues, like tons of articles. Why do you think men are entitled to more coverage in this article?
So when you talk about the "liberal left," what issues do you think they need to talk about more?
But men are covered in this article! It outlines a ton of problems affecting men, it just either does not follow up on the causes and solutions - because who cares, right? - or outright paints it as a political opportunity for women that disaffected men are less likely voters, or even blames men as a whole for the issue.
Yeah, good job, the only way to fix this stupid gender war is "to press men to be better" and pick themselves up by their bootstraps or something.
How do women bridge the divide with men who follow misogynist influencers? How is that even possible? With men who are antifeminist and want to take away our rights?
It's not on "women". It's on all society. Stuff like this does not work like either one or the other. We are one society, men and women. We are the same in more things that matter when forming a society than we are different in.
One could start literally for free by creating successful, positive male role models in media and public discourse alongside women. I don't mean the two dimensional cutouts like Marvel heroes, but people with real problems tackling real issues. If it has to be Marvel, you can start at Deadpool. Dude was ugly as fuck and still loved.
Celebrate Men's Day and Father's Day as well as Women's Day and Mother's Day. Create acceptance and celebrate fatherhood and single fathers, fathers as homemakers as well as fathers as breadwinners. Celebrate successful (not wealthy, but societally positive) men as great examples of what a man should and can be.
There are other things that would be more expensive, like unfucking schooling. Other than reversing the underfundedness of it, make teachers be a prestigious profession again, and have more male teachers for male students to look up to. Get a bit more into why current school practices like homework, rote learning and "frontal", unidirectional lessons disadvantage boys in school. Address the conflict between the societal expectation for boys to be dominant as boys and submissive as students better. Unfuck sports as a subject, take the sole focus away from whatever flavour of profitable "sportsball" your country plays and offer more choice.
You can then go on to work. Tighten up labour safety and wellbeing practices, especially in hard physical labour disproportionately affecting men. Fight overtime as a concept in general, enforce breaks and frequent examinations of both workers' health and safety regulations. Fight back against "macho" culture not by "telling men not to rape", but by strengthening mental healthcare, and supporting hobby groups as third places where men can create friend groups to share feelings with. If broke communist countries could support hobby associations like glider airfields, shooting clubs, hiking clubs and so on, with substantial financial and material grants, why can't the most wealthy societies in history?
Make sure that every third man compared to the life expectancy of women does not die by reaching the age of 60 from the mental and physical hardship of work.
Then there are the hard parts. Like undoing the creation of barriers between people where you are not supposed to interact with other people next to you. Undoing loneliness and the "Tinderization" of relationships, and social media and all the fucked up stuff. Stop having society treat all men as potential predators.
This is just shit off the top of my head, and I'm not even an expert.