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

[nobbyiscool]

Yeah good points.

Is there any real understanding of issues? We used to have quality shows like 7:30, Sunday, Lateline that would interview Left and Right alike. You'd gain an understanding of issues and viewpoints.

No one has time for that shit now, it's just slogans and memes and bullshit. Facts don't matter. It's the information age but we are less informed than we have been in ages.

To quote Blackadder "to you, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people"

It's just ignorance

I don't have all the answers - I do know that it's frustratingly asinine when lefties say that we need to create a version of Joe Rogan for progressives. Because most of the people saying it don't understand why/how he gives them something to understand and to believe in - it's nowhere near as simple as advertising someone as the progressive Joe Rogan and having Obama guest appear. And it's also such an intergenerational issue I think it's nigh impossible for one person to have the breadth of personal experience to truly understand it.

Those are parts of the problem. But I don't know what the solution is. I don't know how we make them understand modern masculinity. I don't know how we teach men that we're the solution to problems like domestic violence and the gender pay gap without "conservative voices" shouting at them that they're being demonised for being men (ie. "not all men.")

I consider myself someone that should know - progressive issues and comms are things that, theoretically, I know about - but neither I, nor plenty of people smarter than I, have cracked that nut yet.

 

[smelly cat]

So your 0% of Catholics not accessing gay hookups or pr0n is kinda just projection on your part then?
Hmmn

Nah, most mick priests are practicing homosexuals.
I’d reckon they spend the majority of their day thinking about gay stuff!
You are wrong, let’s see your stats to suggest otherwise?!

Maybe you're right. I'm no authority on this.

You seem to know what you're talking about.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Maybe you're right. I'm no authority on this.

You seem to know what you're talking about.

I’m not interested in your opinion, I do regard however, data.
You claimed that 0% of Catholics had no predilection to homosexual thought.
Can you provide any evidence, data, peer review for me to review?
Your obsequiousness has been noted though…..
Hand over the evidence or be done?!

 

[Blackhawk42]

Legit question, man to man. What problems do young men have and how are we disenfranchised?

I haven't been part of this conversation, but I feel like there are some glaring answers to this.

Overrepresented in suicides.
Overrepresented in workplace deaths and injuries.
Under-represented in family court victories.
Under-represented in university graduate numbers.

And are growing up in a society that tells young women they can achieve anything, while simultaneously telling young men that their masculinity is a toxic trait.


The real world is FAR more nuanced than this, especially on a person to person basis. However, it's still definitely a reality to these young blokes.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It's a bit weird how old conservative men wearing makeup are telling these young males that masculinity is back.

Not sure why they are falling for it.

 

[sr36]

It's just cyclical rebellion and fashion. Each generation stamps itself by being contrary to the ones that came before. We had the hippy movement of the 70s. It was followed by an entirely different sentiment - the preppiness of the 80s and Gordon Gecko's "greed is good." Which was llowed by grunge, etc...

This time the counter culture rebellion is coming from the right. Joe Rogan, etc have pitched themselves as counter culture rebels of their time and rebellion is attractive to kids.

 

[errant bounce]

It's a bit weird how old conservative men wearing makeup are telling these young males that masculinity is back.

Not sure why they are falling for it.

What's wrong with wearing makeup?

Genuinely?

There have been plenty of men who went to war, played high level football, raised great families who enjoyed cross dressing.

If a bloke wants to wear mascara or use nice products on his face or even a frilly pair of undies to work, I don't give two shits. for a wee while I used to work in a bar with a very nice guy, a very well established lawyer with two nice children and a loving wife, who'd come in for a Coopers yellow every afternoon and chat the house down. we had drag nights on Mondays and it took me a few weeks to realise he was also coming in on the Mondays too.

He wasn't even gay, he just enjoyed it. he was not a picture of health and I imagine he's passed now, but that's a man: a provider, sure of himself, and ultimately happy.

 

[swingdog]

And are growing up in a society that tells young women they can achieve anything, while simultaneously telling young men that their masculinity is a toxic trait.

Not even sure the second half of your sentence needs to be there.

The fact is that the workforce has changed in industrial countries with a growth in jobs that allow women to work equally with men (i.e. more white collar, more services) and the old blue collar jobs are gone.

Those jobs were largely filled by men and have been offshored. There's a caveat that a lot of the textile jobs were predominantly female and were among the first to go but, hey, they were only women's jobs so they don't count. Now all the others have gone or morphed into smaller contractor based jobs (i.e. tradies).

At the same time, at least in Australia, we have had this deification of tradies over the past few decades, both in culture and supportive policy, highlighting a particular kind of masculinity. So, what young men are encouraged to follow is that, even though lots of youn g men, in reality, will still go into white collar and service jobs. They glance across at the tradies in the spotlight and wonder why can't I have that? Must be the girls' fault.

And this is all on top of an economy that doesn't do what it used to do: provide a job, a home and a sense of security. It hasn't done that for 50 years and it won't again any time soon.

 

[Gough]

What's wrong with wearing makeup?

Genuinely?

There have been plenty of men who went to war, played high level football, raised great families who enjoyed cross dressing.

If a bloke wants to wear mascara or use nice products on his face or even a frilly pair of undies to work, I don't give two shits. for a wee while I used to work in a bar with a very nice guy, a very well established lawyer with two nice children and a loving wife, who'd come in for a Coopers yellow every afternoon and chat the house down. we had drag nights on Mondays and it took me a few weeks to realise he was also coming in on the Mondays too.

He wasn't even gay, he just enjoyed it. he was not a picture of health and I imagine he's passed now, but that's a man: a provider, sure of himself, and ultimately happy.

As long as he doesn't he want to read stories at libraries.

 

[faible]

I thought we had kind of sorted that shit out through the 80s and 90s but it’s back and on tren.

Not sure if deliberate, but very funny if you meant it this way

 

[faible]

What's wrong with wearing makeup?

Genuinely?

There have been plenty of men who went to war, played high level football, raised great families who enjoyed cross dressing.

If a bloke wants to wear mascara or use nice products on his face or even a frilly pair of undies to work, I don't give two shits. for a wee while I used to work in a bar with a very nice guy, a very well established lawyer with two nice children and a loving wife, who'd come in for a Coopers yellow every afternoon and chat the house down. we had drag nights on Mondays and it took me a few weeks to realise he was also coming in on the Mondays too.

He wasn't even gay, he just enjoyed it. he was not a picture of health and I imagine he's passed now, but that's a man: a provider, sure of himself, and ultimately happy.

I think it's more the irony of a guy like Trump talking up this hyper-masculine style of masculinity, demonising the queer community, and women, whilst dodging military service and wearing fake tan.

A lot of the MAGA crew are 'in' to this slightly homoerotic hyper-masculinity, but their idols selling it to them are quite the opposite.

 

[the_interloper]

I haven't been part of this conversation, but I feel like there are some glaring answers to this.

Overrepresented in suicides.
Overrepresented in workplace deaths and injuries.
Under-represented in family court victories.
Under-represented in university graduate numbers.

And are growing up in a society that tells young women they can achieve anything, while simultaneously telling young men that their masculinity is a toxic trait.


The real world is FAR more nuanced than this, especially on a person to person basis. However, it's still definitely a reality to these young blokes.

Yes, and this is why judging someone on their demographic is problematic of course.

 

[Deliverance]

This is a really, really good post.

Men are confused. they're told being masculine is a bad thing, but when they open up to a partner they're seen as weak.

Women want men to come approach them in a pub but then will be rude, nasty things when that man isn't exactly what they think they deserve.

I can see why men are drawn to these far right podcast sorts.

No one is telling men that being masculine is a bad thing.

 

[Bigger]

Not sure if deliberate, but very funny if you meant it this way

Cheers.

 

[Gethelred]

Someone's about to try and conflate masculinity and toxic masculinity to counter Deliverance's post.

Isn't everyone excited?

 

[faible]

Someone's about to try and conflate masculinity and toxic masculinity to counter Deliverance's post.

Isn't everyone excited?

This has already been discussed; if you're a young man there's going to be plenty of them that don't understand the nuance between toxic masculinity, masculinity, and men. They'll hear 'toxic masculinity' as 'masculinity is toxic' and you've lost them, they'll go to someone who packages their message in a way that appeals better.

Dismissing it is kind of the point some people keep raising; these people end up gravitating to grifters who explain something in simple terms that package up the message (despite being a shit one) a hell of a lot better.

Jonathon Swan nailed it the other day; the left has lost the culture war. That doesn't mean doubling down on what isn't working or cutting through and hoping doing the exact same thing will result in a different outcome, it means working out how to package up what should be a significantly easier and better message to sell, in a way that actually impacts. That might start by reading / listening to blokes who are telling you that your message is failing.

 

[Gethelred]

This has already been discussed; if you're a young man there's going to be plenty of them that don't understand the nuance between toxic masculinity, masculinity, and men. They'll hear 'toxic masculinity' as 'masculinity is toxic' and you've lost them, they'll go to someone who packages their message in a way that appeals better.

Dismissing it is kind of the point some people keep raising; these people end up gravitating to grifters who explain something in simple terms that package up the message (despite being a shit one) a hell of a lot better.

Jonathon Swan nailed it the other day; the left has lost the culture war. That doesn't mean doubling down on what isn't working or cutting through and hoping doing the exact same thing will result in a different outcome, it means working out how to package up what should be a significantly easier and better message to sell, in a way that actually impacts. That might start by reading / listening to blokes who are telling you that your message is failing.

I'm poking fun at the cyclical nature of debate on this forum, not participating in this thread. Were I to participate in this thread, I'd have to humour some rather silly things: the notion that progressives equals the entirety of the left, which is an assumption embedded in your post; the idea that masculinity is under threat in any way (every single civilisation and generation seems to feel masculinity is under threat); that progressives are the unempathetic ones, etc.

Were I to offer an opinion, what it really comes down to is a combination of marketing and signal boosting more than anything else. It's not even really a more complete or concrete understanding of social media spaces and/or parasocial relationships from the right wing creators over their left wing counterparts; it's almost entirely that the right is filled with marketers and advertisers - professional and semiprofessional promoters - alongside the funds to boost their message to the largest possible audience via preferential treatment by algorithms and the like.

I'm disinclined to add much more than that to the discussion in here, beyond occasionally poking fun at some of its foibles.

 

[CM86]

We don't need masculinity.

There is no positive attribute of masculinity that cannot also be applied to women/females.


Masculinity is a collection of positive traits, ascribed to being male. The downside being that in some cases it can harm young men who are not 'masculine', and will feel less valued when/if they cannot achieve these aspects of 'being a man'.
Setting yet another set of prerequisites for young men to achieve to feel validated.


We don't need masculinity to praise a person for showing traits like strength, courage, ambition, adventurous etc etc.
Praise them for the trait.

If you disagree, then what is a positive aspect of being masculine, that you can't also ascribe to being a woman/female?

 

[sr36]

I'm poking fun at the cyclical nature of debate on this forum, not participating in this thread. Were I to participate in this thread, I'd have to humour some rather silly things: the notion that progressives equals the entirety of the left, which is an assumption embedded in your post; the idea that masculinity is under threat in any way (every single civilisation and generation seems to feel masculinity is under threat); that progressives are the unempathetic ones, etc.

Were I to offer an opinion, what it really comes down to is a combination of marketing and signal boosting more than anything else. It's not even really a more complete or concrete understanding of social media spaces and/or parasocial relationships from the right wing creators over their left wing counterparts; it's almost entirely that the right is filled with marketers and advertisers - professional and semiprofessional promoters - alongside the funds to boost their message to the largest possible audience via preferential treatment by algorithms and the like.

I'm disinclined to add much more than that to the discussion in here, beyond occasionally poking fun at some of its foibles.

Yep. It's been amazing marketing. They've somehow convinced so many that academics are "the man" and billionaires and world leaders aren't. So those who are dissatisfied and looking to stick it "the man" are lining up intellectuals rather than those with power.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Were I to offer an opinion, what it really comes down to is a combination of marketing and signal boosting more than anything else. It's not even really a more complete or concrete understanding of social media spaces and/or parasocial relationships from the right wing creators over their left wing counterparts; it's almost entirely that the right is filled with marketers and advertisers - professional and semiprofessional promoters - alongside the funds to boost their message to the largest possible audience via preferential treatment by algorithms and the like.

This is the bit the conversation really needs to be about... the curiosity that's different to just the same back-and-forward between opposing ideologies.

You've offered a good explanation above for why there's been a shift in how this demographic is voting differently to in the past... but is it the right explanation? It would be informative to consider:
- Is it just a result of "marketing" and the way the current "right" message is being sold?
- Is it a result of the current "right" message being more uniquely tailored to that demographic than in the past?
- Is it a result of an inherent change in the social experience of the demographic compared to the past?



The thread has become very overwhelmed by debate on the last point, but personally I don't even think it's relevant as I don't think it's the cause I think it's a combination of the first two (and for me, I think it's particularly the second point - modern right-wing ideology is not the same conservative ideology that was being sold in the second half of the 20th century).

 

[sr36]

This is the bit the conversation really needs to be about... the curiosity that's different to just the same back-and-forward between opposing ideologies.

You've offered a good explanation above for why there's been a shift in how this demographic is voting differently to in the past... but is it the right explanation? It would be informative to consider:
- Is it just a result of "marketing" and the way the current "right" message is being sold?
- Is it a result of the current "right" message being more uniquely tailored to that demographic than in the past?
- Is it a result of an inherent change in the social experience of the demographic compared to the past?



The thread has become very overwhelmed by debate on the last point, but personally I don't even think it's relevant as I don't think it's the cause I think it's a combination of the first two (and for me, I think it's particularly the second point - modern right-wing ideology is not the same conservative ideology that was being sold in the second half of the 20th century).

Yeah it's a really good point. Although I don't think it's a shift in right wing messages. I think it's a shift regarding economics and the decline of the unions.

In the past left and right described economics and in many ways was union vs business owenership with wealth being a big predictor of voting. But these days with the decline in union power, the main parties are very similar economically and left and right is used to describe social issues.

To generalise, left wing leadership were idealogically about equality, so their platforms tended to become about more than labour rights and have included cultural and gender/sexuality based inclusion, meanwhile mnay of their voters were voting just on workers rights and weren't interested or were opposed to broader equality issues.

THe young aren't rusted on voters for one of the parties, so now that labour rights are a periphery issue in elections, voters are primarily voting on social issues. So we've seen a shift away from the socio-economic equality votes that would have still kept youth voting left - but thats now no longer viewed as a left or right issue. But the thing is that it is a swing to the right - rather than the right getting the majority - and the swing is primarily amongst working class.

 

[Gethelred]

This is the bit the conversation really needs to be about... the curiosity that's different to just the same back-and-forward between opposing ideologies.

You've offered a good explanation above for why there's been a shift in how this demographic is voting differently to in the past... but is it the right explanation? It would be informative to consider:
- Is it just a result of "marketing" and the way the current "right" message is being sold?

If you compare discussion within the right versus the left - when talking to each other, not wider society - what you find is that the left talk about ideas and desired outcomes where the right talk about reception and delivery. Look at the Liberal party's reaction to the failure of Morrison to get up: their issue wasn't that he lacked policies but that their message didn't cut through. It's actually a way to tell that the Democrats aren't really all that left wing, as they're focused more on messaging than outcomes based on ideals as well.

- Is it a result of the current "right" message being more uniquely tailored to that demographic than in the past?

Not really. If you look at what the right believe in and have wanted throughout history - whatever the wealthy/powerful want at the time - their task has always been to create the framework for the wealthy to get what they want and to justify their position to the rest of society. Plenty of people have already discussed - in this and other threads - the reality that there's an awful lot of disaffected people in America, based on how they don't vote; getting through to a subset of the population - ie, market segmentation - is part of the marketer's toolkit. What additional layers of sophistication that have been added are more due to improvements in marketing over the last 100 or so years than anything the right are doing themselves.

- Is it a result of an inherent change in the social experience of the demographic compared to the past?

It's, as usual, a tendency of the left to selfexamine excessively why the right have succeeded when you can see pretty clearly why the faux left failed in the recent election: they weren't left wing. Then, you have that selfexamination reliably encouraged by the same people who would insist that the problem is excessive pandering to minorities getting in the way of worker's rights, who insist on commonplace solutions and that small government is best and that there needs to be something in it for them before they vote for a party.

In short, tepid, offend no-one liberals and "centrists".

The thread has become very overwhelmed by debate on the last point, but personally I don't even think it's relevant as I don't think it's the cause I think it's a combination of the first two (and for me, I think it's particularly the second point - modern right-wing ideology is not the same conservative ideology that was being sold in the second half of the 20th century).

It's barely a coat of paint away from Edmund Burke telling the aristocracy to embrace business as a means of maintaining their right position atop the thrones.

I'm out, before I get dragged into this silliness any further.

 

[Grumpyshades]

I haven't been part of this conversation, but I feel like there are some glaring answers to this.

Overrepresented in suicides.
Overrepresented in workplace deaths and injuries.
Under-represented in family court victories.
Under-represented in university graduate numbers.

And are growing up in a society that tells young women they can achieve anything, while simultaneously telling young men that their masculinity is a toxic trait.


The real world is FAR more nuanced than this, especially on a person to person basis. However, it's still definitely a reality to these young blokes.

some in here like to spout one sided narratives they were indoctrinated with in higher education and conveniently ignore what actually happens in the real world

 

[ElectricG]

This generation is so much worse than boomers

 

[Grumpyshades]

We don't need masculinity.

There is no positive attribute of masculinity that cannot also be applied to women/females.


Masculinity is a collection of positive traits, ascribed to being male. The downside being that in some cases it can harm young men who are not 'masculine', and will feel less valued when/if they cannot achieve these aspects of 'being a man'.
Setting yet another set of prerequisites for young men to achieve to feel validated.


We don't need masculinity to praise a person for showing traits like strength, courage, ambition, adventurous etc etc.
Praise them for the trait.

If you disagree, then what is a positive aspect of being masculine, that you can't also ascribe to being a woman/female?

embarrassing post..