Society/Culture Why are young males now more right wing then older males?

[Carringbush2010]

Political correctness is only "hardly mentioned" because woke has taken it's place as a more emotive descriptor of the right's great boogie-man.

Post after post is pushing that young men are moving right in rebellion against wokeness... but I really, really, really, just don't get it. Having grown up in the 90s, "political correctness gone mad" was all exactly the same rage. Christmas was getting cancelled. Gays were taking over the world. Environmentalists were a risk to our way of life due to their alarmism.

30 years later... the world isn't that different and all the claims are the same.



So what is different?
- Social Media has replaced traditional media, and created cultural silos or echo chambers greatly reducing the percentage of a person's interactions with a broad base of different opinions... that pushes people naturally to more extreme views and a greater engagement with their politics
- Fascism has lost its taboo... it's inherently labelled as ridiculous or extremist to label Trump type politics as fascist; deemed as "likening it to Nazism". Yet many of the political messaging and ideals behind the movement are objectively fascist. It feels like fascism was long enough ago that we no longer recognise it for what it is, but still write-off the naming of it as ridiculous hyperbole
- The traditional bastions of right wing politics... economic liberalism and religious conservatism... have faded as a foundation. The centre-left parties have adopted more or less equivalent economic positions, and religiousness has declined. That's left the more active rather than conservative aspects of right wing politics i.e. the drive towards fascism and the railing against the "wokeness", "socialists", "environmentalists", etc. as the primary purpose of right-wing parties. And that rebellious and anti-status quo aspect appeals primarily to young men... they're replacing rich old people as the core of that side of politics.


The western world's not that different. A little bit less religious. A little bit older. And a lot more economically unequal. But it plays into all the narratives above to say we're somehow in this topsy-turvy world of wokeness and oppression, and young men need to rebel against it. So not only are they leaning right, they're leaning into a modern fascist right that's very different to anything we've had in many decades.

Couldn't have put it better.

Like I said, the bolded is an example of msm hyperbolising what is probably a reflection of minority thought, at both ends of the spectrum. And by extension is sprouted in social media.

Jan and Joe public are hoodwinked into believing this is widespread sentiment as a result, when Jan and Joe probably don't agree with the 'narrative', but because of the flooding of click bait msm and follow on social media, they think they're in the minority of thinking. When they're probably not.

I don't get the impression from the public, when out in public, that they're hard core tree hugging sjw's or far right 'the world is against me' types when interacting with them. The odd occasion you'll run into fringe mind set nutters, but not often.

The problem is that gullible young males that feel alienated by what they think is the 'narrative' gobble up what's displayed to them. In saying that I don't think this is widespread among young males, a lot of them? Sure, but I think we'd see a lot more 'rebellion' and disassociation from society if it was widespread among the young males.

Not convinced, I think the majority of young people have more progressive views than in any time in history, if we're talking about liberal democratic societies. Young white males included.

Perspective, I grew up in the 70's and 80's when 'irrational political correctness' and 'far right fascism' were rarely if ever discussed. Certainly not like it is now.

 

[Blue1980]

Interesting conversation and some salient points.

But just about every poster to this point has only come from a 'left' or 'right' is the cause. Ok that's a simplistic observation but the foundation is there.

While it is likely that younger white males may feel alienated, and probably are driven right by political correctness which is hardly mentioned as an issue in liberal democracies these days. The narratives feel overblown, only negativity is reported in msm and largely on social media, and paints a picture that doesn't necessarily reflect broader society or even a majority of younger males in liberal democracies.

Does it reflect the lament of younger males? And does it reflect the naivety and gullibility of younger males? Hell yeah, but let's not pretend that it's an all and sundry.

-I consider msm the main culprit, not by design, but by the pursuit of click bait.
-The appeal of bad faith opportunists like tate for example for younger males. They're a 'voice against political correctness' for them i:e the far right.
-The far left who those younger males view as a 'voice against them' (advocating for minority groups and not them for example).

I think it’s a fair bit of the manosphere like Tait, also many/most wouldn’t be very in depth about politics and just think Trump is good for a laugh and it’s kinda edgy to be supporting him against the stuffy establishment.

So yes it’s like he appears to be a change from the way politics is done both here and the rest of the US.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think it’s a fair bit of the manosphere like Tait, also many/most wouldn’t be very in depth about politics and just think Trump is good for a laugh and it’s kinda edgy to be supporting him against the stuffy establishment.

So yes it’s like he appears to be a change from the way politics is done both here and the rest of the US.

Like I said, it's not only that. This is very nuanced and can't be put down to one factor. There's a myriad of factors.

 

[Grin]

My position is that the right represent the interests of a very small minority, it therefore seeks to identify and target demographics that are insecure, less educated and with real or imagined grievances, but who feel very entitled. It then seeks to to manipulate them into acting against their own interests. The right (lets call them the 0.1%) spend considerable money a resources to coordinate and achieve this. Trump and Musk are great examples. Gina Rineheart is an Australian example.

Take, just as one small example of a targeted demographic vs a non targeted one: the apprentice tradie vs the student nurse (yes I know not all tradies are male and not all nurses are female). The apprentice gets paid, has paid holidays, super etc. the student pays, no super, works weekend and nights, no paid holidays, sick leave etc. Yet it is the apprentice trade who feels entitled and terribly victimised by 'woke'. It was far more likely to be the tradie who, during the pandemic was anti mask etc. The tradie who felt extremely victimised that he may have to make a tiny sacrifice to protect the lives of the vulnerable in our community (massive generalisation). Another example: The wages and entitlements of the child care worker vs similarly qualified male dominated professions.
Yet somehow a significant minority of young men have been tricked into thinking they're horribly and unbearably victimised by 'woke' ideas of equality and human rights, and seem far more likely to be enthusiastic about sacrificing their agency to ideas such as fascism, even though that's obviously against their own interests. They perceive that this would punish those they believe to be their malevolent enemies (the enemy can be basically summed up as those less likely to be conned by the simplistic politics of grievance and entitlement). Thus they have become willing victims of the biggest grift of our generation.
We'll done Elon and Gina et al

 

[Seeds]

The patriarchy reinforcing its own standards onto a new generation.

Don't acknowledge your emotions. Don't let anyone in. Don't accept rejection. Don't feel anything other than the acceptable male emotions, boisterous enthusiasm or fury. Don't be affectionate in public. Have only masculine coded interests.

There's also a wide strand of conservativity that has wound its way around Australia socially for its entire existence. The OP conflates social conservatism with RW economics, which are not the same thing. Then, you have the consequences of the extremely sex positive libertarian internet, which means sex beamed into your eyeballs as often as you want it. A lott of young boy's first exposures to either sexual or gender relationship dynamics are negotiated through their relationships with the females in their lives laid against the infinite versions reproduced by the internet; whether we're talking tic tok or facebook or pornhub, the vast majority of these reproductions replicate pre-existing gender hierarchies and even lean into conservative ideals of how a woman should look, behave and act in a relationship.

You've then got the manosphere, which pulls young men in search of answers towards traditional masculinity and affirms that the society around them is indeed stacked against them and that it's women to blame. A lot of this stuff is also capitalist and materialist; you've got to have the expensive suit, the fast car, the manicured appearance, the expensive watch. You've got to smoke cubans, you've got to drape yourself in the aesthetic of wealth to be a real man. This pulls these boys into a spiral of retrograde attitudes towards women on one hand and RW capitalist attitudes with the other.

This is all surely not all that much of a surprise, is it?

Not sure how the op conflates social conservatism with rw economics unless you think trumpism only represents one of these and not the other? The only mention of what right wing is in the op refers to trumpism and nothing more.

As for the rest I dont get how it makes young men more conservative then older. Old fashioned masculanity was more prevalent in the past then now. If its simply exposure to that which drives some males to support trump then surely it would result in older males supporting trump more then younger males as they saw this behaviour not only on the net but in their homes, tv and at sport clubs. It was everywhere. And pr0n on the internet aint new. It was wildly prevalent in 1995. All teen males were accessing it then. And before that teens all accessed it on vhs. The rise of pr0n is not something new that has only impacted under 30s males.

Also I dont get what materialism has to do with this issue. Materalist attitudes are actually receding among younger generatioms compared to older. This is a great thing. It doesnt exaplain why younger males vote for trump more then older males given older males grew up in a more materlist culture (gen x and boomers are far more materialist then gen z and millenials). Oh and materalism and capitalism are two completely different things. The only link is that capitalism creates both more wealth then other systems and also more freedom to enable materalism. But capitalism doesnt force us to be materalist. We can use the wealth and freedom of capitalism to enable more leisure instead of more materialism. As an example, Capitalism also enables the fire movement which is less work rather then more stuff.

 

[Gethelred]

Not sure how the op conflates social conservatism with rw economics unless you think trumpism only represents one of these and not the other? The only mention of what right wing is in the op refers to trumpism and nothing more.

The thread title literally states:

Why are young males now more right wing then older males?

... when what is referred to is social conservativism and reactionary behaviour more than RW economic theories.

As for the rest I dont get how it makes young men more conservative then older.

There's a shock.

Old fashioned masculanity was more prevalent in the past then now. If its simply exposure to that which drives some males to support trump then surely it would result in older males supporting trump more then younger males as they saw this behaviour not only on the net but in their homes, tv and at sport clubs. It was everywhere. And pr0n on the internet aint new. It was wildly prevalent in 1995. All teen males were accessing it then. And before that teens all accessed it on vhs. The rise of pr0n is not something new that has only impacted under 30s males.

... dude, c'mon. I grew up between 1995-2005. Home internet only really became a thing for the middle class the other side of 2000, and pr0n's availability only really became a thing once decent speeds became possible to allow for video.

Also I dont get what materialism has to do with this issue.

Materialism weds one to capitalism's worst impulses. Conservative politics is built on identity - what you are, as opposed to a more progressive who - and affecting the trappings - that aesthetic - of affluence is a trick the manosphere uses to influence people.

All art is communication, even fashion.

Materalist attitudes are actually receding among younger generatioms compared to older. This is a great thing. It doesnt exaplain why younger males vote for trump more then older males given older males grew up in a more materlist culture (gen x and boomers are far more materialist then gen z and millenials). Oh and materalism and capitalism are two completely different things. The only link is that capitalism creates both more wealth then other systems and also more freedom to enable materalism. But capitalism doesnt force us to be materalist. We can use the wealth and freedom of capitalism to enable more leisure instead of more materialism. As an example, Capitalism also enables the fire movement which is less work rather then more stuff.

Ah, we're into a 'Seeds makes a series of wild leaps of faith based on surprisingly little pretext and twists himself into a knot' segment of this particular conversation.

This is where I get off. Not a single thing you've written in there makes very much sense, and your objections to the initial point reflect that you didn't really try to consider anything I wrote initially.

 

[Pie eyed]

You’re the one that’s anti-democratic. You only want a Democrat leader ever, meaning you prefer communism.

Democracy is about swing voters balancing their society as it naturally seems fit. Your mindset is the mistake.

We live in Australia.
This forum is overwhelmingly full of Australians.

 

[Andre]

The left is fixated on identity politics which doesn't make young men feel represented at all. If you're a young white cis hetero male with 'privilege', what does the left do for you?

I don't think it's even so much the not represented. There's a significant portion of the Left (not all, by any means), who take it beyond that to being blatantly anti-white / hetro / cis. Replacing 'WASP' privilege with quotas and the like, rather than 'best person for the job/position at uni/etc.' unsurprisingly then has those now on the outer of 'the inside track' feeling alienated and a portion going to the extremes against it.

There's no denying the likes of Tait and co. market toxic masculinity to a receptive audience, but if the premise from the Left was 'All equal, no special deals for anyone, everyone is welcome, even you white, straight folks', then there'd be a much smaller receptive audience for the extremists to reach and manipulate. No matter the group, throughout history when a group has been told 'You're the problem', it's driven members of groups to become the problem. Alienation drives extremism. The Left needs to embrace young straight males (white, but as Trump support shows this isn't purely a 'White' issue), rather than chastise them/look down on them.

 

[RedStarUncle]

I don't think it's even so much the not represented. There's a significant portion of the Left (not all, by any means), who take it beyond that to being blatantly anti-white / hetro / cis. Replacing 'WASP' privilege with quotas and the like, rather than 'best person for the job/position at uni/etc.' unsurprisingly then has those now on the outer of 'the inside track' feeling alienated and a portion going to the extremes against it.

There's no denying the likes of Tait and co. market toxic masculinity to a receptive audience, but if the premise from the Left was 'All equal, no special deals for anyone, everyone is welcome, even you white, straight folks', then there'd be a much smaller receptive audience for the extremists to reach and manipulate. No matter the group, throughout history when a group has been told 'You're the problem', it's driven members of groups to become the problem. Alienation drives extremism. The Left needs to embrace young straight males (white, but as Trump support shows this isn't purely a 'White' issue), rather than chastise them/look down on them.

Where... in real life... is this exclusion even happening though? I'm a white straight male. I don't think I've ever felt excluded from anywhere. Except maybe 1 room in an art gallery in Tasmania I heard about on the news.

The only time I might feel excluded is when Social Media, Podcasters, even just the news, etc. tell me I'm excluded. If I listen to them... and take note of their photos and examples of extreme things posted on the internet, I might believe it. But if I focus on my real lived experience I just don't see it.


So I can only conclude it's manufactured to make me feel excluded even though I'm not. And that sense of exclusion will amplify if you're young and exposing yourself to those forms of media. And those forms of media are selling neo-right ideology as the solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

 

[ReidBetweenTheLines]

We live in Australia.
This forum is overwhelmingly full of Australians.

Not sure what point you’re making here. 99% of mods and leftist posters on here will never vote for Liberal/Nationals under any circumstances. If you are never a swing voter for either state or federal elections then want you really want is a communist state.

Myself I’ve switched several times between labour and liberal. Don’t think any of the rusted on radical leftists that post on Bigfooty can say the same.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Not sure what point you’re making here. 99% of mods and leftist posters on here will never vote for Liberal/Nationals under any circumstances. If you are never a swing voter for either state or federal elections then want you really want is a communist state.

Myself I’ve switched several times between labour and liberal. Don’t think any of the rusted on radical leftists that post on Bigfooty can say the same.

It's possible to be pro-democracy without ever supporting elements of representation within that democracy.

It's possible to be pro-democracy but expect limitation of anti-democratic actors or even the exclusion of them within that democratic framework.

 

[Blue1980]

I don't think it's even so much the not represented. There's a significant portion of the Left (not all, by any means), who take it beyond that to being blatantly anti-white / hetro / cis. Replacing 'WASP' privilege with quotas and the like, rather than 'best person for the job/position at uni/etc.' unsurprisingly then has those now on the outer of 'the inside track' feeling alienated and a portion going to the extremes against it.

There's no denying the likes of Tait and co. market toxic masculinity to a receptive audience, but if the premise from the Left was 'All equal, no special deals for anyone, everyone is welcome, even you white, straight folks', then there'd be a much smaller receptive audience for the extremists to reach and manipulate. No matter the group, throughout history when a group has been told 'You're the problem', it's driven members of groups to become the problem. Alienation drives extremism. The Left needs to embrace young straight males (white, but as Trump support shows this isn't purely a 'White' issue), rather than chastise them/look down on them.

Most of the apparent “extremes” of the left are so minor and inconsequential and played up by right wing media to rile up the base.

Either that or things totally made up, like litter boxes in class rooms.

 

[Pie eyed]

Not sure what point you’re making here. 99% of mods and leftist posters on here will never vote for Liberal/Nationals under any circumstances. If you are never a swing voter for either state or federal elections then want you really want is a communist state.

Myself I’ve switched several times between labour and liberal. Don’t think any of the rusted on radical leftists that post on Bigfooty can say the same.

You are posting about voting for Democrats?
As opposed to what?

Australia is a democracy.
All parties are democratic.
There are no republican parties.

You seem to be conflating America's bullshit form of government with ours.
In the US Liberals would be considered the left.
Here they are the right wing conservatives.
You mentioned communists, when you clearly mean socialists.

Your post stinks of US political rhetoric.

For the record I don't really care what you voting history is.

The freedom to vote for the party of your choice is not Communism, just as Democracy is not changing the democratically elected party just because you feel they have had a enough terms and you think your p[referred party deserves a shot, unless the majority of other people do too.

 

[Seeds]

The left is fixated on identity politics which doesn't make young men feel represented at all. If you're a young white cis hetero male with 'privilege', what does the left do for you?

This I think is the problem.

Millenianls and gen x were taught universal human rights. Everyone should be treated equally and given the same opportunities regardless of where they come from. The goal is to create a world where race, sex and sexual preference should not matter to ones identity.

This does not appear to be what gen z are taught. Genz z are taught that traditional minorities are deserving of special privleges for various reasons (historical discrimination, moral relativism, subconcious bias etc). They are taught race, sex and sexual preference very much matter to ones identity. When a generation is taught this worldview they are going to align with the party they think mosts supports their race, sex or sexual preference identity. They dont seem to care so much about supporting the protection of human rights so they ignore all the terrible violations of rights that trump is likely to impose. They just care about which team roots for them. And for young white males its not the team that keeps telling them to apologize for their white male privlege (despite the fact they are on the bottom levels of the workforce), calls their gender toxic (there is no such thing as female toxicity) and tells them to just accept that women and minorities should be given priority over them in employment regardless of merit.

I.e its identity politics that is the problem. Its splitting people into groups and telling them to fear and hate those from other groups. When this happens you stop caring about the rights of others.



Anyway this is just a theory. Open to other ideas.

 

[Blue1980]

Not sure what point you’re making here. 99% of mods and leftist posters on here will never vote for Liberal/Nationals under any circumstances. If you are never a swing voter for either state or federal elections then want you really want is a communist state.

Myself I’ve switched several times between labour and liberal. Don’t think any of the rusted on radical leftists that post on Bigfooty can say the same.

I used to vote LNP in my 20s, but don't and doubt I would ever vote for anyone right leaning ever again, unless the paradigm shifts in a way which is totally unforseen.

I could vote the same way the rest of my life, doesn't mean I don't want to stop people voting. Heaps of people left and right leaning always vote the same, do you think none of them believe in democracy?

You make the worst arguments.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Most of the apparent “extremes” of the left are so minor and inconsequential and played up by right wing media to rile up the base.

Either that or things totally made up, like litter boxes in class rooms.

'They're eating the litter boxes!'

 

[RedStarUncle]

This I think is the problem.

Millenianls and gen x were taught universal human rights. Everyone should be treated equally and given the same opportunities regardless of where they come from. The goal is to create a world where race, sex and sexual preference should not matter to ones identity.

This does not appear to be what gen z are taught. Genz z are taught that traditional minorities are deserving of special privleges for various reasons (historical discrimination, moral relativism, subconcious bias etc). They are taught race, sex and sexual preference very much matter to ones identity. When a generation is taught this worldview they are going to align with the party they think mosts supports their race, sex or sexual preference identity. They dont seem to care so much about supporting the protection of human rights so they ignore all the terrible violations of rights that trump is likely to impose. They just care about which team roots for them. And for young white males its not the team that keeps telling them to apologize for their white male privlege (despite the fact they are on the bottom levels of the workforce), calls their gender toxic (there is no such thing as female toxicity) and tells them to just accept that women and minorities should be given priority over them in employment regardless of merit.

I.e its identity politics that is the problem. Its splitting people into groups and telling them to fear and hate those from other groups. When this happens you stop caring about the rights of others.



Anyway this is just a theory. Open to other ideas.

I like this. And I think it's reasonably a part of pushing towards political persuasion as an identity rather than just something you do for yourself so it's a good idea as an answer to the question.

I think it's also important to understand why a lot of equality ideology has moved away from "treat everyone equal" and towards "provide advantage to those who are disadvantaged".

The biggest failing I see in what we learned about as millennials and Gen Xers (as someone close to the fringe in age) is that universal rights have a limit in terms of equality if there are genuine, entrenched advantages and hierarchies in society.

"Anyone can get into university on merit" is tempered by the fact that wealthy white kids are more likely to go to private schools which are better placed to help kids tick the right boxes to demonstrate that merit. "Anyone can get the job if they're qualified" is tempered but a small, but not non-zero, number of hiring bosses who will instantly through away resumes of any female applicant. "Everyone pays tax based on their earnings" is tempered by loopholes that are only accessible if you earn enough to take advantage of them.

So if I'm able to take advantage of any of those institutional advantages, of course I want "everyone to be treated equally" because I'll probably still end up winning. So if you want to help minority groups overcome the hurdles and achieve equality, they need a hand-up.

I'm not arguing whether that's right or wrong or whether we as a society have got that balance right... but it's a very nuanced and continuously evolving concept and it's a disservice to reduce it to "equality of opportunity is better than equality of outcome" or vice-versa.



But again... they don't want to sell it as nuanced and evolving. They want to sell it as the "modern woke mindvirus" that we must stamp out before it destroys us all.

 

[Gethelred]

I don't think it's even so much the not represented. There's a significant portion of the Left (not all, by any means), who take it beyond that to being blatantly anti-white / hetro / cis. Replacing 'WASP' privilege with quotas and the like, rather than 'best person for the job/position at uni/etc.' unsurprisingly then has those now on the outer of 'the inside track' feeling alienated and a portion going to the extremes against it.

There's no denying the likes of Tait and co. market toxic masculinity to a receptive audience, but if the premise from the Left was 'All equal, no special deals for anyone, everyone is welcome, even you white, straight folks', then there'd be a much smaller receptive audience for the extremists to reach and manipulate. No matter the group, throughout history when a group has been told 'You're the problem', it's driven members of groups to become the problem. Alienation drives extremism. The Left needs to embrace young straight males (white, but as Trump support shows this isn't purely a 'White' issue), rather than chastise them/look down on them.

"Oh, look at what you made me do."

 

[stax on the mull]

An entire generation of bozos who have been brought up on watching Sky news with their sport. And what can you say about their parents. The OK Boomer thing is fun to say but there's no more politically complacent generation than mine - Gen X.

 

[stax on the mull]

When you dumb down politics to the lowest common denominator one of the first things that you lose is the sense of irony.

 

[Gough]

An entire generation of bozos who have been brought up on watching Sky news with their sport. And what can you say about their parents. The OK Boomer thing is fun to say but there's no more politically complacent generation than mine - Gen X.

We're comparatively small in numbers though.