Lyman Stone and Brad Wilcox of the conservative Institute for Family Studies take to The Atlantic to argue that this trend is “bad news for marriage.”
Marriage rates in America are falling fast: Many men and women are marrying later, and more and more people. are never marrying at all. Marriage is in retreat for a host of reasons, but one overlooked cause is the rising difficulty many young people have finding a partner who meets all of their requirements—emotional, physical, financial, and political. That last requirement has only become more important over time, with fewer Americans willing to date or marry across the aisle.
Dating apps and websites report a growing share of users setting political criteria for matches. The Survey Center on American Life, a project of the American Enterprise Institute, recently found that about two-thirds of liberal and conservative singles would be more likely to “swipe left” and reject a potential match who did not share their politics.
Given that my preference is for marriages that are happy and stable rather than marriage for its own sake, this all strikes me as to the good. Mary Matalin and James Carville notwithstanding, it’s really hard to make a marriage work if the two partners have wildly disparate worldviews.
They make a stronger point here:
This bodes ill for the future of marriage—given that growing numbers of young men and women find themselves on different sides of America’s deepening political divide. (We base our following analysis on the fact that most young adults who marry will do so with a different-sex partner—according to Census Bureau data, heterosexual marriages accounted for about 98 percent of weddings of people under 35 in 2021.)
The nonpartisan General Social Survey, run out of NORC at the University of Chicago, has been collecting data on young people’s political attitudes since the early 1970s. We’ve found that focusing on singles ages 18 to 30 and pooling data across five-year intervals is a useful way to ensure a large enough sample to track accurately how attitudes in early adulthood have shifted over time. The figure below shows the share of young singles (18–30) in the survey who identified as distinctly liberal or conservative (excluding respondents in the middle who answered as “slightly liberal,” “slightly conservative,” or “moderate, middle of the road”).
The most striking aspect of these trends is that the past decade has seen the sexes polarizing along ideological and political lines, a pattern that coincides with the rise of social media and the post-Trump political landscape. Young single men have been moving to the right, even as their female peers have been moving even further left. About 10 percent of such men were conservative in the early 1980s, but that share has now risen to about 15 percent (while the proportion of single liberal young men has held steady at about 18 percent in recent years).
As for single young women, the share identifying as liberal surged from about 15 percent in the early 1980s to 32 percent in the 2020s. (Correspondingly, the share of conservative single women declined from 10 percent to about 7 percent over the same period.) Most of this change has happened since 2010. In short, the past decade has seen single young men shift slightly to the right and single young women move markedly left, which means that the ideological divide between the sexes is growing.
This is interesting indeed and often rendered invisible by cohort polling. While the younger generation are considerably more liberal than older cohorts, that’s almost entirely a function of younger women moving to the left.
Without a more detailed breakdown, I don’t know exactly what to make of that. My guess is that a lot of this is likely driven by abortion and LGBTQ issues, where women are naturally going to be more “liberal.”
Given that the trend starts in 2010, it’s not about Trumpism per se—although I’m sure that has accelerated it. But that roughly coincides with the rise of the Tea Party, which I see as the direct precursor to Trump. Both the Tea Party and MAGA are full of ressentiment over the declining power of white Christian men, complete with pseudo-macho cosplay with firearms. It’s not surprising that this is less appealing to young women than young men.
Does this make marriage—a valuable institution for raising children—less likely? It does. But misogynists make terrible husbands and fathers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This poses a major challenge for people looking to marry, given that many of today’s young adults show a growing preference for partnering with someone who shares their politics. Granted, partisanship as a determinant of the choices people make in love and marriage is not a wholly new phenomenon: Americans have been sorting partners by politics for decades. This is a wise strategy for most people—assuming that, for many, an ultimate goal of dating is to find a spouse—because research suggests that marriages across political or religious lines (when those things matter significantly to each partner) can be less happy, more conflicted, and more likely to end in divorce than marriages where spouses agree on religion and politics.
Indeed, the premise of matching services like eHarmony is to recommend potential partners who align on these metrics. It’s certainly possible to be happy with a spouse from a different religion—but probably only if religion isn’t particularly important to you. If one partner is adamant that the children be raised as Orthodox Jews and the other a devout Roman Catholic, it’s not likely to work out. Ditto a rabid Trumper and an AOC devotee.
However, plenty of evidence suggests that marriages between like-minded spouses are stronger; scholars call such relationships, in which the two partners share important characteristics, “homogamous.” Homogamy matters for marriage when it predicts how a person thinks about their life goals, their ways of resolving conflicts, and their values regarding work, family, faith, and fun. Clearly, for many people, religion is very bound up with such attitudes, but the benefits of homogamy certainly don’t end there. For example, it turns out that even highly narcissistic people are happiest when married to other narcissists, according to a 2020 study.
(I don’t understand why this is a “However” rather than an “Indeed.)
A lot of people might swipe left for narcissists, too, so where does politics fit in? Recent research suggests that politically homogamous couples really do enjoy greater relationship satisfaction and lower divorce rates. Wendy Wang, the director of research at the Institute for Family Studies, where we are both fellows, has found that fewer than half (47 percent) of politically mixed married couples report they are “completely satisfied with their family life,” compared with “61 percent of couples in which both spouses are Republicans and 55 percent where both are Democrats.” Besides being more likely to share a range of values, couples on the same political team are likely to find it easier to build friendships in common, especially given the polarized character of today’s society.
The values and attitudes encapsulated in religious and political ideologies also act as a reliable proxy for long-term life goals—especially regarding gender, work, and family—that have a big bearing on whether marriages succeed or fail. For men and women who have similar political views, forming a bond with a mate is simplified.
So, again, the authors seem to agree with me that the sorting they bemoan makes for healthier marriages.
But for those with very different political views, matching is a tougher challenge. Because fewer heterosexual men and women will be able to find a partner who shares their politics, more people may never marry at all.
Liberal women and conservative men who want to marry face a particular challenge: Not enough single partners of the correct political persuasion are available today. In broad terms, there are only 0.6 single liberal young men for each single liberal young woman; likewise, only 0.5 single conservative young women exist for every conservative young man. Statistically, in other words, about half of these ideologically minded young singles face the prospect of failing to find a partner who shares their politics.
That is indeed a math problem. And that’s without considering a related issue: younger heterosexual women are far more likely than their target pool to have graduated college. That certainly overlaps with ideology but, given that college-educated women tend to look for college-educated men as partners, the numbers don’t add up.
There are a few more paragraphs belaboring the point before concluding:
The sobering future for marriage and family life in America is that greater political polarization spells trouble for already anemic rates of dating, mating, and marrying. And not only in America—we are seeing this dynamic play out in other countries. Recent research in Singapore has found that divergent attitudes between men and women about politics, family, and gender roles are a crucial factor in low marriage rates. Similar effects can be seen in South Korea, where rates of marriage and fertility have hit world-historical lows.
The divide between the sexes in America is not as deep as it is in parts of East Asia, but the U.S. is in danger of heading in that direction. And if the sexes are making war over political issues, they’re less likely to make love.
It’s an interesting problem with no obvious short-term solution. Indeed, the “gender gap” has been a thing since at least the 1980 election.
Politics is being named as a difference between people, but political views are an outcome of a variety of moral calculations about our purpose in life, our responsibility to other people, and our goals for a society.
A difference in political views these days is a difference in core morality. It is a difference in worldview. It is a fundamental, and likely incompatible, chasm between living in a selfish, me-centered world, and seeing the world as a community of people each of whom has rights and privileges and value.
It is the difference between living as a toddler – seeing the world as a vending machine for everything I need, and living as a mature adult.
It is no wonder that young women are not interested in being partners with selfish brats who just want to take.
@BugManDan: Was just about to ask the same question. It doesn’t strike me that straight cis women are more or less likely to be LGBTQ+ friendly or even tolerant.
@Tony W: I agree. While this may be about politics in the way it is often defined, it is not about political philosophy but rather group identity. And from my point of view the grouping is “Willing to accept complete nonsense from the alphas in your group and become enrage by it” and “A normal group as it has been since before Reagan, i.e. a mixture of all types but in general demanding much more reality-based information than the other group”. A couple where one believes in malignant fantasy and the other is reality based is going to have a lot of trouble. Is the most important thing about your children’s schooling that they are struggling with math or having trouble finding a set of friends, or is the most important thing that you need to show up at a school board meeting and scream about how Satanists are trying to make Mary gay?
To be clear, the two groups have distinct political positions (pro vs. anti abortion, pro vs. anti religion and government intermingling) but those positions have very little to do with political philosophies. You can’t point to the hyper-Republican maneuvering of Santis vs Disney and say it is based on pro-business, small government philosophies, or the desire for many “liberal” younger people for laws against hate speech and align that with pro-personal freedom or freedom of speech.
@MarkedMan: It’s interesting that this might be one of those situations in which my own lived experience is coloring my perception, but I cannot think of a single straight woman I am close friends with, even some who are independent/lean Republican, who are not solidly in favor of LGBTQ+ rights.
I can imagine that women are generally more inclined to be more sympathetic toward (other) subversions of traditional gender roles – including sexual behavior – than men.
(Even though, of course, this won’t be necessarily the case.)
As for single young women, the share identifying as liberal surged from about 15 percent in the early 1980s to 32 percent in the 2020s. (Correspondingly, the share of conservative single women declined from 10 percent to about 7 percent over the same period.) Most of this change has happened since 2010. In short, the past decade has seen single young men shift slightly to the right and single young women move markedly left, which means that the ideological divide between the sexes is growing.
Gee, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that women don’t like being treated as 2nd class citizens. More proof that they just don’t know their place. I blame it all on giving them the vote. That was our real mistake.
Does moving to the right mean anything in the context of a relationship? In my experience, a red flag for most women is a man who has benign topics he just can’t/won’t discuss. The guy who goes eerily quiet and stares off into space because of term ‘toxic masculinity’ was used exists in op-eds and polls, but in a relationship that comes off as disturbing. Treating everything that is unfamiliar as an incomprehensible enemy is not a good thing. 99% of what bothers conservatives is nothing that actually happens to them. We excuse this in voters because of politics and an intuition that many are brought up by parents who did this to them. But you can’t be in a relationship with another person and expect this same treatment to happen if it’s a good relationship.
I work in an industry with many, many, many 20-somethings. My assistant is a 26yo African American woman who is stunningly beautiful. She has more suitors than she knows what to do with – and has zero intention of ever getting married or having kids. She’s good with the FWB’s she has, and has no desire – at all – to ever have kids.
I would say most of the 20-somethings I work with talk openly about not having a desire to get married or have kids. I don’t know if that’s a film/TV business thing, a California/LA thing, or a generational thing. But it’s definitely a thing.
Other politicians are all-in on the moral panic over trans people, but only Trump cuts through the bullshit and unveils the real target. By openly mocking the women in sports he’s claiming to protect, Trump goes farther than his primary competitors even as they constantly seek to set themselves apart by being crueler and more dementedly obsessed with trans people than each other. Trump alone is showing he understands the real stakes, and the real targets. He will fight for the domination and humiliation of women with his last breath, and knows that trans people are a mere sideshow.
My identical experience. It may be that men in general feel somewhat more threatened by LGBTQ people.
Oh absolutely!
Fear of gay men. He may feel my leg! He might kiss me! Oh god, I might like it!!!!
Trans women. I might be attracted to her and end up living the scene from The Crying Game.
An aside, a gay friend once took me to the bar that he met, his then, future husband. There was a large poster on the wall of two men copulating with the statement; Beer, loosening up straight boys for thousands of years.
@Jen: I guess I’m judging it by the snippets I see of people standing up at school board meetings, or when we find out the identity of those requesting book bans, etc. A large number, perhaps a majority, seem to be women. Just my impression.
@drj: I think weakness, in general, drives this division.
And many sheltered, privileged, white men are among the weakest folks among us. If you have every advantage, you are not forced to work harder than everyone else.
If you’ve ever traveled to the Caribbean, you’ll notice there’s a thing called “Island Time”. Construction projects get done whenever they get done – maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day – we’ll see. The weather is great year-round (except for hurricanes) so there’s no “Winter Is Coming” that forces you to get it done or die in a few months.
Every successful black woman will tell a story about having to work twice as hard as everyone else to get to the same spot. Ginger Rogers talked about doing the same dance moves as Fred Astaire, but backward and in high heels.
Coddled white men feel threatened, and largely because of the protection of their mother’s basements, they don’t feel like they have the skills and stamina to make it in today’s world – and for many of them, they are correct.
So, in their weakness they punch down – which is what weak people do. LGBTQ+ folks, like racial minorities before them, are easy targets, and in their information bubble, these weaklings reassure each other that they are the ones defending America from those awful outsiders.
@Sleeping Dog: Yet the same bunch of guys who get all squeamish and icky feelings about getting sexually harassed by a male don’t have enough understanding or empathy as to why women will have similar feelings when getting sexually harassed. We’re “just supposed to put up with it”, or “he’s just showing that he likes you.”
MarkedMan- I think that is adjacent to the Karen phenomenon. There might be fewer women opposed to gays/trans etc, but those who are may be more virulent and willing to be outspoken about it and often tied into “Christian” beliefs. (The part where Jesus we should hate people who are different.) Anita Bryant is a good example of an outspoken woman leading efforts against the gays. I also think conservatives are aware most women arent anti-gay so having some women leaders “proves” they are not bigoted agains gays. Sort of like finding a conservative black person and waving them around to prove they arent racist.
Bit of bad news because marriage is already a bad bet for a man, if he wants kids. Women initiate 80% of divorces. For the man, that means loss of assets and often loss of access to his children. Yes, yes, make all the “men are terrible” arguments you want. However, for the man who values having children, this raises the risk of who he marries sky high. So definitely, a liberal woman is a very big risk to a man who wants an intact family.
And with marriage happening in the 30s, i.e., right at middle age which in the 1960s origin article put it at 35, then more pragmatic determinations will be being made.
And here is a young woman who went to social media to lament her not finding a unicorn, a man who is traditionally masculine but not conservative.
BTW, middle-aged was not just a midpoint of life expectancy, it had criteria that now are muddled. Parents are now growing old when the kid is in their 20s and the kids are still toddlers in the parent’s mid-thirties.
The simple fact of the situation is the arrival at the mid-point of life. What is simple from the point of view of chronology, however, is not simple psychologically. The individual has stopped growing up, and has begun to grow old. A new set of external circumstances has to be met. The first phase of adult life has been lived.
Family and occupation have become established (or ought to have become established unless the individual’s adjustment has gone seriously awry); parents have grown old, and children are at the threshold of adulthood. Youth and childhood are past and gone, and demand to be mourned. The achievement of mature and independent adulthood presents itself as the main psychological task. The paradox is that of entering the prime of life, the stage of fulfilment, but at the same time the prime and fulfilment are dated. Death lies beyond.
However, for the man who values having children, this raises the risk of who he marries sky high. So definitely, a liberal woman is a very big risk to a man who wants an intact family.
The first thing that came into my head was that this man wants a woman that is wholly subservient to his desires, believes a whole bunch of stupid things about women’s bodies, and believes his kids are objects, not tiny people. My guess is this “man” also believes that the sun shines out of his ass.
So definitely, a liberal woman is a very big risk to a man who wants an intact family.
Red states have much higher divorce rates. There are a number of speculative reasons for this, but the biggest determiner seems to be that conservative women get married far younger.
Yup. But you’re expecting a lot from a huge section of the population that suffers from arrested development. Refer back to the discussion a week or so ago on the plight of young men and all the hand wringing about the state of men.
But the truth is, that men, myself included, needed to make the intellectual journey to that maturity before the emotional one.
I would again reject the conflation of “conservative” with white MAGA Christian men. Conservative people vary from, frankly, people like you James, all the way through to actual fascists.
It’s a very similar story with “liberal” and “progressive.”
Increasingly I’ve come to believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding born out of how individuals personally define these words, and it’s not clear what people actually mean when they self-identify as one of them.
Anyway, on marriage, I do think it is sad that partisan ideology is the new religion.
And this may be more controversial, but I think a lot more narcissism today makes it more difficult for people to compromise, including for a partner or spouse. But compromise is a requirement for any successful long-term relationship.
@JKB: There’s a lot of terrible stuff going on in divorces. Statistically speaking, it may land harder on men. I don’t feel like denying it.
However, consider this. MA has fewer divorces than MS. WA has fewer divorces that ID or NV. The statistics also suggest that people in more liberal states are better at making stable marriages, and thus, stable families.
I have a stable marriage. I married a liberal woman. We created a stable family that has weathered a lot of really bad stuff.
It was work though. For both of us. One can’t simply assume that nothing will chase your partner away. Totally worth it.
Any sort of analytic take on why this might be is going to be me making stuff up. I don’t even have people to observe and report on. So I’m not going to. Fill in blanks your own way, but I recommend data and observation, rather than pre-existing beliefs.
@Andy: I think a lot of spouses get fed up with weaponised incompetence, as well. Have also read a lot of complaints about husbands spending all the time in front of the video game screen rather than acting like a father taking care of the kids and doing his part of the household chores.
A quantitative researcher I know questions the data set underlying the article, and the questionable interpretation of it:
Natalie Jackson
@nataliemj10
1. Other data sources don’t show this polarization.
2. Sample sizes here are super small.
3. This is less than half of both groups. The rest identify as moderates.
4. 1-3 mean that there is no crisis, here.
Maybe if you are a conservative young man living in NYC or DC, you are having issues. Or a liberal young woman in a rural area.
@BugManDan: @MarkedMan: @Jen: @drj: @CSK: @Sleeping Dog: I was in a hurry this morning and didn’t want to get off the track but, yes, it’s my strong sense that men tend to react far more viscerally to LGBTQ issues than women. We’ve all heard stories about or actually known women who “experimented” with lesbianism in college before settling down with a man. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a man doing that. We’re wired and socialized so very differently than women on that front.
It’s an interesting problem with no obvious short-term solution.
If women hold their ground, this solves itself in a generation.
From the beginning of time, men have had to grow up and improve themselves to the point where women will tolerate their presence. The current conservative movement seems intent on opting out of that growth — compromise is a bad thing, you can get your way with a temper tantrum, etc. They’re just emotionally stunted, and not in a fun, quirky way.
I could go on about how patriarchy harms men as well as women, and that’s true, but it’s mostly a bunch of man-children embracing the man-child life.
@James Joyner: I suspect it all dates back to the penetrator/penetrated who/whom mindset. I forget which culture it was (Russia? Ancient Greece? The Taliban?), but the homophobia was along a very weird axis: gay male-on-male activity is ok as long as you’re the penetrator. If you’re the penetrated, the homophobia came out in droves.
I suspect that a hell of a lot of human culture of all societies is in fact formed around the unconscious fear that men have of being the penetrated.
@MarkedMan: And the percentage of parents who attend school board meetings is what percentage of the total number of parents in the district? Would you make a similar assumption about the makeup of women’s attitudes from analysis of the results of a primary election?
“I suspect it all dates back to the penetrator/penetrated who/whom mindset. I forget which culture it was (Russia? Ancient Greece? The Taliban?), but the homophobia was along a very weird axis: gay male-on-male activity is ok as long as you’re the penetrator. If you’re the penetrated, the homophobia came out in droves.”
It was certainly true in ancient Rome. Among other examples, Julius Caesar had a relationship with the king of a client state as a young man, and jokes about it continued for the rest of his life.
Which is all well and good, but what about the ubiquity and popularity of Trans porn? Speaking from experience, the guys that are into that kind of porn don’t see women like me as women, but they definitely want to have sex with us.
Edited to add, in case you don’t know, this type of porn used to go by terms such as “shemale” or “ladyboy” which makes this a bit clearer if more gross.
@EddieInCA:
My guess would be it is a bit of each, but that more than the other two it is a film and tv thing. From my, admittedly much more limited*, experience in the industry the long hours and relatively short-term nature of the work (so having to hustle new work regularly) attracts people that are happy to be less tied down. An overbroad generalization that doesn’t apply to everyone in the industry and maybe not even most when I had my toe in it more than a decade ago, but we’re talking about population trends here. LA also attracts people that are less traditional and are more likely to be happy not being tied down. Younger generations also tend to be less hidebound to tradition. Add all that up and your experience isn’t all that surprising, though different than mine the better part of a generation ago.
* only a few years and never more than 2nd AD on low budget projects
I’m curious, how do you define “Conservative”? Is it different from “conservative”?
I don’t think there is one definition, which is the problem. Also, I try not to capitalize it.
For example, traditional intellectual conservatism was entirely opposed to the idea of populism, but MAGA conservatism is entirely about populism. These aren’t the same things. Who is the real “conservative?” Opinions vary.
Have also read a lot of complaints about husbands spending all the time in front of the video game screen rather than acting like a father taking care of the kids and doing his part of the household chores.
I read similar things about wives expecting their man to provide them with a certain lifestyle. I rarely encounter either of these cases in the real world, so I tend to think these aren’t that common.
I was in a hurry this morning and didn’t want to get off the track but, yes, it’s my strong sense that men tend to react far more viscerally to LGBTQ issues than women.
I would like to see some data to support that. My sense is far different, considering how much I read about the supposed TERF problem.
I read similar things about wives expecting their man to provide them with a certain lifestyle. I rarely encounter either of these cases in the real world, so I tend to think these aren’t that common.
With all seriousness, might I suggest a nice Transition for you. The number of men who expect women to handle everything far outstrips the number of supposed “gold diggers”. It has been wild to see how ingrained weaponized incompetence is for a huge population of men. At least 1/3 of male attorneys I deal with treat me as their other assistant instead of their peer.
My sense is far different, considering how much I read about the supposed TERF problem.
TERFs are a huge problem. Especially because their absolute numbers are much smaller than the amount of noise they make is. There isn’t very many of them, they are just very loud and very certain.
@Andy: On quick search, most of the big national surveys (Pew, Gallup) don’t seem to break out their data by gender. A YouGov survey, which is likely more problematic methodologically, supports my view, with men being less supportive than women across the board, although by relatively small numbers.
@Andy:
The TERF problem is a loud, outspoken, primarily online, minority.
The ‘golddigger problem’ also seems like it is pretty limited in scope. I have yet to meet a divorced person where this was an issue, much less THE issue.
Re: the man on the couch playing video games rather than pulling his weight trope, I think that particular stereotype is probably overblown, BUT there is a deeply culturally ingrained feeling among a not insignificant population of men that women are supposed to handle the household chores and raise the children that leads to many men pulling less than their weight around the house and with the kids. Of the three, that last is probably orders of magnitude more prevalent and more felt in the home.
@Beth: Mmm. It might be more of a case of “transgressive activity in the porn I watch”. Do they watch porn a lot, have become bored with “the standard stuff” and are looking around for something else that might turn them on? Is it something they really want to do? Or are they looking for something they can indulge in their minds “that’s really out there” while knowing full well they’re not at all interested in experiencing it in real life? A lot of women have what can only be described as “abducted by the Sheik” fantasies, but I doubt they’d like the same experience in real life.
Honestly, I don’t think we can conclude much from people’s porn viewing habits, unfortunately. Except that they have access to a credit card.
I could not access the underlying article but I think there is a strong statistical caution as the American tendency to treat Named Generations as if they are coherent and discrete things creates significant mirages – while understanding such things are rather better done under statistically defined birth cohorts moving through time (decade or whatever).
The article in The New York Times under the title “Millenials are not the Exception, they’ve moved to the right treating something of the numerical mirage generated by sloppy named Generation type anectdote to sloppy numbers analysis is suggestive.
This is not to take an opinion that the citations are wrong (nor correct), merely an observation that the numbers and evoked framing would merit great caution rather than taking as the point of departure
And I see this comment: @Matt Bernius: which I think confirms treating such with great caution as quite likely rather over-drawn numbers of dubious statistical robustness.
(and TERF… the very picture of the Faculty Loungism terminology and discourse that has infected American Left discourse…)
Yes, women are less terrified of LGBTQ people than men are. That’s why the GOP had to invent the ‘groomer’ slander. You can’t motivate women by threatening men’s fragile manhood, so you threaten the children. That gives them the excuse they need to turn into bug-eyed shrieking loons.
My wife of 45 years is a liberal and I do, and have always done, at least my share of housework. I am all things kitchen, which includes all food shopping, and usually laundry as well. Trash goes without saying as well as heavy object manipulation. And occasionally I try to fix things before giving up and calling a guy.
Traditionally masculine men who love liberal women and understand they they carry half the load of housework must not be too terribly difficult. I’m one. Pretty sure there are others.
The claim to male exceptionalism went out the window many decades ago when women started working outside the home. Do you make enough to support a family on one income? If not then shove your 1950’s fantasies. And why in God’s name would you want to be the sole earner? To avoid loading the dishwasher? That’s asinine. Over the course of our marriage there’ve been times I carried the ball, times she did, but usually we both did. That’s a robust system that affords us maximum flexibility and survivability. Oh, and yeah, we had kids.
@Lounsbury:
I join you in frustration at the named generation thing. Defining sets of people based on silly criteria and then polling them does not yield useful data.
@James Joyner: I looked at that Yougov poll because I was curious whether it broke it into male R, male D, etc. Without that, I think the differences in male vs female could easily be covered by the difference in the number of each in the two parties.
I get your point, with the caveat that my lived experience thinks there’s something deeper. For example I was at a club this weekend and got hit on by a very aggressive man. He made it very clear he wanted to have sex with me (and my friend) and that his understanding of me was that I was sort of a man and sort of a woman and either way he wanted to go. It was pretty gross even by my markedly low standards. As an aside, he very much wanted me to drink a “Hennessy and pineapple”.
@Michael Reynolds: My husband is traditionally masculine and carries more than his share of the housework. He was on his own for years and as far as he’s concerned, having someone around to divide the work with was a major plus–it was never a question that the work would be shared.
For the most part, we can and do trade off jobs when necessary. I’ll deal with hauling the trash and recycling to the transfer station, and he’ll vacuum if I’m swamped with deadlines and can’t get to it. That’s how a household works.
The only thing I won’t touch is the snowblower, and that’s because he bought a big AF one that is too heavy for my 5′ frame to maneuver.
Well, only if you’re a rational human. I don’t cook often, but my wife is limited to, well, making coffee? Occasionally? OTOH I have zero patience with paperwork, so she pays the bills. From each according to their abilities.
@Michael Reynolds: Well, for precision my objection is one related to the incoherence and innumeracy that is fundamental to the broad bucket named Generations that USA is so fond of inventing (arising as I recall from the alchemy of Marketing rather than actual statistical population work).
It leads to gross self deception by collapsing demographic analysis (of which certainly age controlled cohorts are useful) into incoherent slogans/stereotypes, “Millenial” “Boomer” with inattention to actual cohorts and their progression in time, nd confusion of visible [online or voting e.g.] sub sets of a cohort for the entire cohort/presumptive Named Generation which leads to unpleasant surprises as less visible components age into visibility (as in voting).
We’re it not analytically obvious from actual proper statistics over time such Generations are mirages, I should be quite happy to name them.
But they are in fact exercises in rubbish self deception. Which is tolerable I suppose for marketing given they’re little more than alchemists…
@Beth: I should hardly “realise” something that is an untruth, as the referenced originator herself was and is a critic. But interesting to see the assertion as an aspect of rhetoric and rhetorical mythologisation as a political position tool.
Of course this factoid is utterly irrelevant to my observation on Faculty Loungism diacourse. Or perhaps more broadly BoBo Intelloism albeit perhaps a francisme.
@Beth: I was wondering what your experience has been in this area….
Based on my own experiences in Japan where I was hit on as a female gaijin, I’m thinking there might be a (Pokemon! Gotta catch them all!) attitude on the part of at least some guys as well. Pretty disconcerting to feel that you’re just one more experience some noob wants to check off on his sexual bucket list.
(TERFs have always reminded me of what the end of the second wave of feminism dwindled into: a bunch of radical Marxists in jeans and black turtlenecks seated around a table in NYC arguing about who was more feminist/Marxist than the other.)
I am speaking as the father of a 30-something daughter.
Our current polarization tells me that the core value differences between a (non-RINO) Republican and a generic Democrat are pretty damned wide.
I can’t imagine my daughter having a long term dating relationship with (let alone marrying) a current base Republican man. My daughter believes in the current liberal policies concerning: a woman’s right to make her own health care and reproductive decisions, freedom to fully and equally participate in career opportunities, equal rights under the law for LGTBQ persons, and so forth.
@Beth: Back in the Clinton administration, I thought the only way we would get marriage equality would be to make lesbian wedding porn, get it into the hands of every 14 year old, and wait a generation for fetishization to do the trick.
I remain convinced that attitudes on interracial couples changed when the internet made interracial porn easy to find without having to make eye contact with the guy at the adult video store. (If you look at polling numbers, interracial marriage only gets above 50% approval shockingly late)
So… I maybe all the trans porn is the start of something good.
(TERFs have always reminded me of what the end of the second wave of feminism dwindled into: a bunch of radical Marxists in jeans and black turtlenecks seated around a table in NYC arguing about who was more feminist/Marxist than the other.)
TERFs aren’t feminist, despite the name. Or radical, for that matter. They are trans exclusionary, though, so half their chosen acronym is correct.
They will sometimes cloak themselves in feminist language, but in ways that reinforce a patriarchy.
They are Trans Exclusionary Reactionary Fascists for the most part.
You both may be right, and I’m not stating you’re necessarily wrong, but I don’t trust speculation and anecdote. As I said, I would like to see some actual data on this.
For those on Reddit, I’d recommend the /askwomen and /askmen subreddits. The Reddit audience skews pretty young, but much of the discussion there seems to reflect what younger generations are thinking. But you won’t see those (and many other) subreddits because of the current blackout protest.
@Beth: Hennessey and pineapple? WTF? Hennessey and anything is a waste of good brandy. E&J* and pineapple? Weellllllll maybe, but it’s still pretty drinkable to add mixers to.
*The fortified spirit made from the wines in the cellars of Ernest and Julio Gallo of Modesto, CA.
the end of the second wave of feminism dwindled into: a bunch of radical Marxists in jeans and black turtlenecks seated around a table in NYC arguing about who was more feminist/Marxist than the other.
I’m sooooooo glad that someone not named cracker said this. (Although I did go to grad school and teach with some of them. Even without ever visiting NYC.)
@James Joyner: I had actually meant to point out that circularity in my reply and got distracted. But being Republican may be the cause rather than being male, or vice versa, or both.
I would again reject the conflation of “conservative” with white MAGA Christian men.
While on the one hand, I agree that the terms “conservative,” “liberal,” “progressive,” etc. are used a bit too loosely in conversation (not just here at OTB, but in society broadly).
But I am also not sure what here, as well as in the other thread, as to the precise nature of your objection.
While, true, “conservative” does not equal “MAGA,” quite clearly MAGA is a subset of conservative. , is it not?
@Just nutha ignint cracker: I’m cranky about self-proclaimed “radical feminists” of whatever stripe because there’s a certain subset who keep accusing me of “betraying the feminist revolution” because I know math and physics. (My roommate from MIT had to deal with one of these idiots teaching her in law school. Seriously.)
For those on Reddit, I’d recommend the /askwomen and /askmen subreddits. The Reddit audience skews pretty young, but much of the discussion there seems to reflect what younger generations are thinking.
I am not trying to be snarky here, but aren’t these two contradictory positions?
But I am also not sure what here, as well as in the other thread, as to the precise nature of your objection.
While, true, “conservative” does not equal “MAGA,” quite clearly MAGA is a subset of conservative. , is it not?
Yes, it’s a subset. For some reason, it’s the subset that always gets mentioned here, while the others aren’t. And in the previous thread, you specifically traced the rightward swing of young people to this specific subset – mostly based on a series of assumptions. You didn’t have any evidence and could not present any evidence when asked that this rightward swing was entirely a consequence of this subset. And that’s my objection – as I said in the last thread – focusing on this subset as the causative factor for a “conservative” turn while ignoring all the other subsets, or potential reasons millions of people might now self-identify as “conservative.”
And then, from there, you lept to the conclusions about what motivated those young men, which you characterized as being entirely about a “loss of power” which relies on an entirely different set of questionable assumptions.
I am not trying to be snarky here, but aren’t these two contradictory positions?
No, in the first case, people are making claims, such as about men sitting in front of the TV playing video games instead of helping their spouses. My position is that if one going to make claims, then, at least IMO, those claims ought to have some evidentiary basis. I get that’s a common stereotype, but my question is, how common is that in reality? Not that I haven’t said the stereotype is false, but rather I’m doubtful that it’s as common as the stereotype would suggest. Hence my desire for some data on that.
In the second part, where I mention the two subreddits, I’m not making any claims or conjectures or promoting any stereotypes. I’m simply pointing to online spaces where mostly younger people discuss stuff, especially relationships. And I specifically qualified that with the phrase: “seems to reflect what younger generations are thinking” which certainly isn’t stating that these subreddits represent reality. But for Gen-Xers like us, it can be useful to discover things the some younger people care about that we don’t understand for reasons that should be obvious.
@Andy: Fellow Gen-Xer here, and mother of a 22 and 19 yr old.
I understand the ‘not all conservatives’ objection. For instance, my Dad who has always supported my non-girly interests and ambitions, is still technically a Republican, and definitely fiscally conservative in the traditional sense, but has not voted GOP outside of a primary nearly a decade because the party in his neck of Ohio has gone full QAnut MAGAt. At the same time, the most extreme MAGAts are the voice my kids’ cohort hears and associates with ‘conservative’. And that perception is reinforced by the lack of pushback by any prominent/powerful Republicans, and the constant refrain in the press, including conservative press, that no one dares oppose Trump because of the power of his base.
I think my daughter could therefore be forgiven for swiping left on a guy who identified as ‘conservative’. Moderate or not into politics would be okay, but calling yourself conservative can legitimately be seen as a red flag. Esp, if coupled with ‘Christian’, because a guy who would is likely to think she should be subservient to him is just not good life partner material (not to mention supporting or even being okay with harmful policies directed at her tans cousin).
And in the previous thread, you specifically traced the rightward swing of young people to this specific subset – mostly based on a series of assumptions. You didn’t have any evidence and could not present any evidence when asked that this rightward swing was entirely a consequence of this subset.
Less couldn’t and more did not want to expend the energy to further the argument coupled with an honest uncertainty as to what you would consider evidence (with a side helping of I wasn’t sure you even understood my claim).
Don’t mistake a lack of willingness to go on a deep dive in a blog comment thread conversation with proof that your assertions were correct. I mean, that’s hardly fair, is it?
And I will be more direct about the data question: you seen to be dismissing some folks views as anecdotal (which is fair). But then saying “go look at Reddit,” which is just a bunch of self-selected anecdotes, doesn’t strike me as a data-driven response.
For example, traditional intellectual conservatism was entirely opposed to the idea of populism, but MAGA conservatism is entirely about populism.
The term “pluto-populism” captures MAGA. This is a top down populism driven by Koch money and FOX/GOP propaganda. Very different from the prairie populism of the turn of the last century. Pluto-populism is designed to keep the proles voting for GOPs without giving them anything that costs the plutocrats. Abortion bans, but no healthcare. Pluto-populism is very conservative. And I suspect most populist movements have been pluto-populist. Hitler was funded by big business to suppress the communists and socialists.
Don’t mistake a lack of willingness to go on a deep dive in a blog comment thread conversation with proof that your assertions were correct. I mean, that’s hardly fair, is it?
Again, I was never asking for proof or a deep dive – merely some evidence supporting your assertions, which you and James keep repeating. I think it is entirely fair to ask you to defend your thesis with something more tangible than repetition.
And I will be more direct about the data question: you seen to be dismissing some folks views as anecdotal (which is fair). But then saying “go look at Reddit,” which is just a bunch of self-selected anecdotes, doesn’t strike me as a data-driven response.
Because those are two different things – as I explained. It’s not too much to ask people making claims to provide some evidence to support them. With regard to Reddit, I was making no claim that requires data, I was just pointing to one resource that might provide some views relevant to this thread. It’s no different than pointing to the NYT or any other content. Saying, hey, the NYT has some interesting perspectives that might be worth looking at is not something that requires a “data-driven” context. Now, if I had suggested that Reddit was the definitive source that explained some aspect of young people, I would expect to be called out and asked for evidence to support that claim. But I didn’t do that.
Hi, thanks for the comment. I have a 19yo daughter and 18yo son (and another son, 13).
At the same time, the most extreme MAGAts are the voice my kids’ cohort hears and associates with ‘conservative’. And that perception is reinforced by the lack of pushback by any prominent/powerful Republicans, and the constant refrain in the press, including conservative press, that no one dares oppose Trump because of the power of his base.
I definitely get that. I’d just point out that perception isn’t necessarily reflective of reality. Maybe it’s because I know many self-described conservatives who are similar to your Dad. There certainly are a lot of #nevertrump conservatives, for example. “Conservative” means different things to different people.
“Christian” is becoming another term often used to describe right-wing political evangelicals while ignoring other types of Christians. James’ post here talks about the resentment of “white Christian men.” Ironically, the current President is white, carries a rosary with him 24/7, prays daily, and attends church regularly.
So I understand that people use these terms as red flags, but I think it’s important to note that using the terms this way paints with a very broad and inaccurate brush.
@Andy: I don’t disagree, esp wrt Christian. I live across the street from an ECUSA minister who is quite liberal wrt social issues and very active wrt the Jesus talked most about: caring for the poor and outcasts.
The issue is seeing conservative + Christian in a dating app profile. Either alone would be a ‘yellow light’ – proceed with caution. Both together? Full stop.
Again, from pov of my kids’ group. I’ve been happily married over 30 years so my only experience of dating apps was taking a look at a profile for my son. (I’ll note that he also filters based on ones with a long list of lefty/social justice issue profiles since he feels like that is just someone trying too hard too look super ‘good’ and he has no time for that kind of person).
@Andy: I’m not sure that I’m making any big claims here. The OP is based on an op-ed by two traditionalist conservatives looking at polling data about diverging trends in ideology along gender lines. Given that the divergence started around 2010, I speculated that, since that coincided with the rise of the Tea Party and the rapid takeover of the GOP by the populist wing, that the two were related.
Rather obviously, since I’m still relatively conservative—and very much White and male—it’s not my position that all White, male conservatives are alike. But I’m trying to explain the change in question, not the status quo ante. Something is causing this populist surge—not just here, but in the West writ large—and the diminished power of White, Christian, heterosexual/cisgender men is rather clearly a big part of that.
Something is causing this populist surge—not just here, but in the West writ large—and the diminished power of White, Christian, heterosexual/cisgender men is rather clearly a big part of that.
And that’s the specific part I’d like to see some evidence for. You, Steven, and others say this is “clearly” a big part of that – well, if it is so obvious, then it should be easy to provide some evidence supporting it. So far, no one in these threads (including commenters) has done that.
@Andy: That there’s a huge white nationalist component to Tea Party and their MAGA successors isn’t in serious dispute. Francis Fukuyama had a good survey in 2018:
A second has to do with the definition of the “people” that are the basis for legitimacy: Many populist regimes do not include the whole population, but rather a certain ethnic or racial group that are said to be the “true” people. Thus Viktor Orbán in Hungary has defined Hungarian national identity as based on Hungarian ethnicity, something that would exclude non-Hungarians living in Hungary, and include the many Hungarians living in surrounding countries like Slovakia or Romania. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India has similarly been trying to shift the definition of Indian national identity from the inclusive liberal one established by Gandhi and Nehru to one based on Hinduism. The Polish Law and Justice Party has emphasized traditional Polish values and Catholicism, and has stimulated the rise of more overtly racist groups, like the one calling for a “white Europe” in November 2017.
[…]
Leaders of the Brexit movement, by contrast, did not stress an expansive economic program, nor did they have a single charismatic leader. But they did appeal to anti-immigrant cultural fears and traditional British identity, as well as to unhappiness about economic dislocation. Viktor Orbán fits all three definitions: he has tried to protect Hungarian savers from “predatory” European banks; he has a restrictive definition of “the people”; and he would certainly like to be considered a charismatic leader. It is not clear whether Vladimir Putin fits any but the last of the three definitions: he has been cautious on expansive social programs; while he has stressed Russian identity and traditions, that tradition is not necessarily restrictive in ethnic terms. Putin has certainly built a cult of personality around himself, though it is hard to argue that he is an outsider seeking to overthrow the entire elite, having come up through the ranks of the KGB and then the Russian FSB. The same can be said about India’s Narendra Modi and even China’s Xi Jingping: they have both become popular by attacking the existing elite, though they themselves are very much part of that elite.
It should be noted that Donald Trump fits all three definitions. During his campaign, he stressed economic populism, threatening to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement once in office. He promised to protect entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security—though since becoming President, he has governed more like a traditional conservative Republican, seeking for example to cut social benefits by repealing Obama’s Affordable Care Act. And while Trump has never explicitly endorsed white nationalism, he has been happy to accept support from those who do, and went out of his way to not single out neo-Nazis and overt racists during their rally in Charlottesville. He has had a very problematic relationship with African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities; black sports stars and performers have been frequent targets of his Twitter posts.
[…]
The final driver of populist nationalism is cultural and has to do with identity. Many years ago, Samuel Huntington pointed out that the most dangerous socio-economic class was not the poor and marginalized, who often lacked the time and resources to mobilize, but rather middle classes who families felt they had lost ground economically and were not being adequately recognized by the political system. Such people can make economic demands, but they tend to interpret their loss of status culturally, as well. They used to constitute the group that defined national identity, but were now being displaced by newcomers who were being given unfair advantages over them. They are driven by a politics of resentment against elites who benefit from the system, and they tend to scapegoat immigrants and foreigners as agents of this loss of status. In this respect, economic motivation overlaps substantially with cultural concerns, and in many ways cannot be distinguished from them. It also distinguishes North European or American populism from that of Southern Europe or Latin America. The social basis of Brexit, Trump, and Le Pen voters lies in declining middle or working classes, whereas Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, Chavez in Venezuela, or the Kirchners in Argentina are more traditional left-wing parties representing the poor.
This has what has made immigration such a powerful issue in driving populist nationalism in Northern and Eastern Europe and the United States. Rates of immigration and refugees have become very high in Europe and the United States, and concerns over rapid cultural change have motivated many voters to support populist parties and leaders even if they have not felt under direct economic threat. This is reflected in the oft-stated goal of populist parties to “take back our country.” In many ways, questions of identity—language, ethnicity, religion, and historical tradition—have come to displace economic class as the defining characteristic of contemporary politics. This may explain the decline of traditional center-left and center-right parties in Europe, which have lost ground steadily to new parties and movements built around identity issues.
There’s a lot more there and there are dozens of similar articles, some of which you’ve surely encountered. Identity politics aren’t the sole driver, of course, but they’re undeniably an important one.
@James Joyner & @Andy:
As we discussed a few days ago, there is a wealth of corollary evidence. I also know that Andy is looking for more causal evidence and, unfortunately, that’s a bit harder to find (in part because it’s somewhat difficult to study in a rigorous way). I’ve been doing some research into the topic and scanning papers to find examples of citations to back up those claims. So far I haven’t found a ton (or the ones that I have are more theorizing about a connection than citing specific studies).
I did find this on-point section in an Annual Review of Political Science (emphasis mine):
Within the demand-side camp, explanations emphasizing sociocultural grievances are the main competitors of economic grievance–based explanations. Rather than focusing on economic trends, these types of explanations argue that social and cultural trends over the past decades—most notably rising immigration, the decline of traditional values, and the mobilization of women and minority groups—are the main cause of populism. Such trends, these scholars argue, have challenged ethnic and gender hierarchies, generating a counterreaction. Particularly among white men, the counterreaction has led to support for right-wing populists, who promise to defend their interests. Sociocultural grievance–based explanations are popular among political scientists studying the advanced industrial world and particularly American politics, as well as among sociologists.
The foreign-born share of the population has reached historic heights in the United States as well as many European countries. In Europe, the political impact of immigration was aggravated by the refugee crisis of 2015 and the fear generated by high-profile terrorist incidents, such as the November 2015 Islamist attacks in Paris that killed over 100 people and injured over 44 and the December 2016 Islamist attack in Berlin that left a dozen people dead. That recent immigrants, particularly in Europe, come largely from nonwestern and non-Christian backgrounds has fed fears about the decline of European culture and identity (Caldwell 2009, Murray 2017), leading some voters to support populist politicians and parties that loudly proclaim a commitment to defend them. In the United States, meanwhile, historically high levels of immigration have been accompanied by growing discussion of broader demographic trends likely to lead the country to become majority nonwhite by the middle of this century (US Census Bur. 2018). Numerous political scientists and political psychologists have documented the power and pervasiveness of group-based identity threats and how they can lead voters to support politicians and parties that promise to protect their group’s status and identity. Craig & Richeson (2014a) found that simply making white Americans aware that they would soon be a minority increased their propensity to favor their own group and become wary of those outside it. Similar effects were found among Canadians. Indeed, although white group-based identity threat is the focus of populism scholars—since this is the group most likely to vote for populists—researchers consistently find that the propensity to favor one’s own group and/or demonize out-groups increases alongside the perception of threat (Outten et al. 2012, Tajfel 1970).
The election of the first African American president in the United States highlighted the shifting power dynamics in the country generated by this long-term demographic change, leading even more white voters to feel resentful and threatened (Gest 2016, Tesler 2012). Abramowitz & McCoy (2019, p. 137), for example, argue that “[t]he empowerment of new minority groups in the form of Barack Obama’s election reinforced a sense of loss and disempowerment by white working-class voters whose economic base was shifting in a globalized economy and whose previously dominant social status was being challenged by the growing diversity of the country in terms of race and ethnicity, gender roles, and sexual orientation.” And many scholars emphasize that in both the United States and Europe, alongside the long-term demographic changes caused by immigration and the growing size and mobilization of minority groups, an assault on traditional values had been perceived since the 1960s, leading many, particularly white citizens, to feel that their identities and values were being threatened. Cumulatively, these trends generated a nativist, nationalist, populist backlash as growing numbers of citizens, particularly white males, came to feel like strangers in their own countries (Craig & Richeson 2014b, Dodd et al. 2017, Hochschild 2018).1
Identity politics aren’t the sole driver, of course, but they’re undeniably an important one.
That is something I agree with, and when it comes to identity politics, it’s not just white Christian men who want to protect group identity and status. So do white secular men, women, and all kinds of other groups. I think it’s missing a lot when one group’s identity politics is singled out as the cause of societal problems.
As Fukuyama mentions specifically, these tendencies can come from the right or left, and certainly are not dependent on skin color or religious affiliation.
@Andy: Oh, for sure. We talk quite a lot here about how identity politics have roiled the left, with White elite progressives having an agenda that puts them at odds with a lot of Black and Hispanic Democrats who are more socially conservative. But I think the Tea Party/MAGA block is bigger and more powerful. And, quite naturally, the group that has defined what it means to be “American” since the founding is unhappy to see the foundational beliefs of their culture challenged and changed.
While I think you may be correct about abortion, not sure why LGBTQ would be more a woman issue.
Politics is being named as a difference between people, but political views are an outcome of a variety of moral calculations about our purpose in life, our responsibility to other people, and our goals for a society.
A difference in political views these days is a difference in core morality. It is a difference in worldview. It is a fundamental, and likely incompatible, chasm between living in a selfish, me-centered world, and seeing the world as a community of people each of whom has rights and privileges and value.
It is the difference between living as a toddler – seeing the world as a vending machine for everything I need, and living as a mature adult.
It is no wonder that young women are not interested in being partners with selfish brats who just want to take.
@BugManDan: Was just about to ask the same question. It doesn’t strike me that straight cis women are more or less likely to be LGBTQ+ friendly or even tolerant.
@Tony W: I agree. While this may be about politics in the way it is often defined, it is not about political philosophy but rather group identity. And from my point of view the grouping is “Willing to accept complete nonsense from the alphas in your group and become enrage by it” and “A normal group as it has been since before Reagan, i.e. a mixture of all types but in general demanding much more reality-based information than the other group”. A couple where one believes in malignant fantasy and the other is reality based is going to have a lot of trouble. Is the most important thing about your children’s schooling that they are struggling with math or having trouble finding a set of friends, or is the most important thing that you need to show up at a school board meeting and scream about how Satanists are trying to make Mary gay?
To be clear, the two groups have distinct political positions (pro vs. anti abortion, pro vs. anti religion and government intermingling) but those positions have very little to do with political philosophies. You can’t point to the hyper-Republican maneuvering of Santis vs Disney and say it is based on pro-business, small government philosophies, or the desire for many “liberal” younger people for laws against hate speech and align that with pro-personal freedom or freedom of speech.
The take home message: “Incel” population to increase.
@MarkedMan: It’s interesting that this might be one of those situations in which my own lived experience is coloring my perception, but I cannot think of a single straight woman I am close friends with, even some who are independent/lean Republican, who are not solidly in favor of LGBTQ+ rights.
@BugManDan:
I can imagine that women are generally more inclined to be more sympathetic toward (other) subversions of traditional gender roles – including sexual behavior – than men.
(Even though, of course, this won’t be necessarily the case.)
@Jen:
My identical experience. It may be that men in general feel somewhat more threatened by LGBTQ people.
Gee, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that women don’t like being treated as 2nd class citizens. More proof that they just don’t know their place. I blame it all on giving them the vote. That was our real mistake.
And for those who can’t tell, //s
Does moving to the right mean anything in the context of a relationship? In my experience, a red flag for most women is a man who has benign topics he just can’t/won’t discuss. The guy who goes eerily quiet and stares off into space because of term ‘toxic masculinity’ was used exists in op-eds and polls, but in a relationship that comes off as disturbing. Treating everything that is unfamiliar as an incomprehensible enemy is not a good thing. 99% of what bothers conservatives is nothing that actually happens to them. We excuse this in voters because of politics and an intuition that many are brought up by parents who did this to them. But you can’t be in a relationship with another person and expect this same treatment to happen if it’s a good relationship.
@Argon: I’ve been thinking exactly that for some time now.
I work in an industry with many, many, many 20-somethings. My assistant is a 26yo African American woman who is stunningly beautiful. She has more suitors than she knows what to do with – and has zero intention of ever getting married or having kids. She’s good with the FWB’s she has, and has no desire – at all – to ever have kids.
I would say most of the 20-somethings I work with talk openly about not having a desire to get married or have kids. I don’t know if that’s a film/TV business thing, a California/LA thing, or a generational thing. But it’s definitely a thing.
@MarkedMan:
A possible data point for you:
https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/nnvtysax4p22vrs6ttpfztnotik2t1
@CSK:
Oh absolutely!
Fear of gay men. He may feel my leg! He might kiss me! Oh god, I might like it!!!!
Trans women. I might be attracted to her and end up living the scene from The Crying Game.
An aside, a gay friend once took me to the bar that he met, his then, future husband. There was a large poster on the wall of two men copulating with the statement; Beer, loosening up straight boys for thousands of years.
Yup, men feel more threatened.
@Jen: I guess I’m judging it by the snippets I see of people standing up at school board meetings, or when we find out the identity of those requesting book bans, etc. A large number, perhaps a majority, seem to be women. Just my impression.
@Sleeping Dog:
Yup. It’s not roving gangs of young women who beat up gay male couples. It’s roving gangs of young men.
@drj: I think weakness, in general, drives this division.
And many sheltered, privileged, white men are among the weakest folks among us. If you have every advantage, you are not forced to work harder than everyone else.
If you’ve ever traveled to the Caribbean, you’ll notice there’s a thing called “Island Time”. Construction projects get done whenever they get done – maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day – we’ll see. The weather is great year-round (except for hurricanes) so there’s no “Winter Is Coming” that forces you to get it done or die in a few months.
Every successful black woman will tell a story about having to work twice as hard as everyone else to get to the same spot. Ginger Rogers talked about doing the same dance moves as Fred Astaire, but backward and in high heels.
Coddled white men feel threatened, and largely because of the protection of their mother’s basements, they don’t feel like they have the skills and stamina to make it in today’s world – and for many of them, they are correct.
So, in their weakness they punch down – which is what weak people do. LGBTQ+ folks, like racial minorities before them, are easy targets, and in their information bubble, these weaklings reassure each other that they are the ones defending America from those awful outsiders.
@Sleeping Dog: Yet the same bunch of guys who get all squeamish and icky feelings about getting sexually harassed by a male don’t have enough understanding or empathy as to why women will have similar feelings when getting sexually harassed. We’re “just supposed to put up with it”, or “he’s just showing that he likes you.”
Talk about immature brats….
I always wondered how Kellyanne and George Conway could share the same zip code, let alone the same house. Then again, they are divorcing…
MarkedMan- I think that is adjacent to the Karen phenomenon. There might be fewer women opposed to gays/trans etc, but those who are may be more virulent and willing to be outspoken about it and often tied into “Christian” beliefs. (The part where Jesus we should hate people who are different.) Anita Bryant is a good example of an outspoken woman leading efforts against the gays. I also think conservatives are aware most women arent anti-gay so having some women leaders “proves” they are not bigoted agains gays. Sort of like finding a conservative black person and waving them around to prove they arent racist.
Steve
Bit of bad news because marriage is already a bad bet for a man, if he wants kids. Women initiate 80% of divorces. For the man, that means loss of assets and often loss of access to his children. Yes, yes, make all the “men are terrible” arguments you want. However, for the man who values having children, this raises the risk of who he marries sky high. So definitely, a liberal woman is a very big risk to a man who wants an intact family.
And with marriage happening in the 30s, i.e., right at middle age which in the 1960s origin article put it at 35, then more pragmatic determinations will be being made.
And here is a young woman who went to social media to lament her not finding a unicorn, a man who is traditionally masculine but not conservative.
BTW, middle-aged was not just a midpoint of life expectancy, it had criteria that now are muddled. Parents are now growing old when the kid is in their 20s and the kids are still toddlers in the parent’s mid-thirties.
As Read on Twitter:
Dating Tip- If a guy tells you he’s not very political, he’s conservative but has learned that won’t get him laid.
@JKB:
Of course, what this statistic actually proves is that marriage is bad bet for women. They are the ones who want out, after all.
Instead of marrying someone someone who doesn’t want to advocate for herself, men could also step up and be less shitty partners.
I see that you’re a big believer in “personal responsibility for thee, but not for me.”
Who is to blame if you’re unable to outcompete a vibrator and a cat?
No one can outcompete a cat! (Says the guy typing with a 20 lb Siamese on his lap.)
Steve
@JKB:
The first thing that came into my head was that this man wants a woman that is wholly subservient to his desires, believes a whole bunch of stupid things about women’s bodies, and believes his kids are objects, not tiny people. My guess is this “man” also believes that the sun shines out of his ass.
@drj:
Speaking of Unicorns! Allow me to present this little NSFW, not family friendly darling:
https://www.lewandmassager.com/unicorn-wand-limited-edition-set.html
@Tony W: I’m curious why you limited this by race? Do you think that minority or non-US males are more welcoming to LBGTQ+?
@steve: That’s a big cat!
@JKB:
Red states have much higher divorce rates. There are a number of speculative reasons for this, but the biggest determiner seems to be that conservative women get married far younger.
@grumpy realist:
Yup. But you’re expecting a lot from a huge section of the population that suffers from arrested development. Refer back to the discussion a week or so ago on the plight of young men and all the hand wringing about the state of men.
But the truth is, that men, myself included, needed to make the intellectual journey to that maturity before the emotional one.
And I ain’t perfect.
I would again reject the conflation of “conservative” with white MAGA Christian men. Conservative people vary from, frankly, people like you James, all the way through to actual fascists.
It’s a very similar story with “liberal” and “progressive.”
Increasingly I’ve come to believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding born out of how individuals personally define these words, and it’s not clear what people actually mean when they self-identify as one of them.
Anyway, on marriage, I do think it is sad that partisan ideology is the new religion.
And this may be more controversial, but I think a lot more narcissism today makes it more difficult for people to compromise, including for a partner or spouse. But compromise is a requirement for any successful long-term relationship.
@Andy: I’m curious, how do you define “Conservative”? Is it different from “conservative”?
@JKB: There’s a lot of terrible stuff going on in divorces. Statistically speaking, it may land harder on men. I don’t feel like denying it.
However, consider this. MA has fewer divorces than MS. WA has fewer divorces that ID or NV. The statistics also suggest that people in more liberal states are better at making stable marriages, and thus, stable families.
I have a stable marriage. I married a liberal woman. We created a stable family that has weathered a lot of really bad stuff.
It was work though. For both of us. One can’t simply assume that nothing will chase your partner away. Totally worth it.
Any sort of analytic take on why this might be is going to be me making stuff up. I don’t even have people to observe and report on. So I’m not going to. Fill in blanks your own way, but I recommend data and observation, rather than pre-existing beliefs.
@Andy: I think a lot of spouses get fed up with weaponised incompetence, as well. Have also read a lot of complaints about husbands spending all the time in front of the video game screen rather than acting like a father taking care of the kids and doing his part of the household chores.
A quantitative researcher I know questions the data set underlying the article, and the questionable interpretation of it:
@BugManDan: @MarkedMan: @Jen: @drj: @CSK: @Sleeping Dog: I was in a hurry this morning and didn’t want to get off the track but, yes, it’s my strong sense that men tend to react far more viscerally to LGBTQ issues than women. We’ve all heard stories about or actually known women who “experimented” with lesbianism in college before settling down with a man. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a man doing that. We’re wired and socialized so very differently than women on that front.
If women hold their ground, this solves itself in a generation.
From the beginning of time, men have had to grow up and improve themselves to the point where women will tolerate their presence. The current conservative movement seems intent on opting out of that growth — compromise is a bad thing, you can get your way with a temper tantrum, etc. They’re just emotionally stunted, and not in a fun, quirky way.
I could go on about how patriarchy harms men as well as women, and that’s true, but it’s mostly a bunch of man-children embracing the man-child life.
@James Joyner: I suspect it all dates back to the penetrator/penetrated who/whom mindset. I forget which culture it was (Russia? Ancient Greece? The Taliban?), but the homophobia was along a very weird axis: gay male-on-male activity is ok as long as you’re the penetrator. If you’re the penetrated, the homophobia came out in droves.
I suspect that a hell of a lot of human culture of all societies is in fact formed around the unconscious fear that men have of being the penetrated.
@MarkedMan: And the percentage of parents who attend school board meetings is what percentage of the total number of parents in the district? Would you make a similar assumption about the makeup of women’s attitudes from analysis of the results of a primary election?
@JKB: Just for the record, I stopped reading and moved on before the end of sentence 3. Yow!
ETA: But I do admire the people who stuck with the BS and tried to reason with you. Perhaps they did a service for the lurkers.
@MarkedMan: It’s not really limited by race. I was choosing a trumpy demographic
@grumpy realist:
“I suspect it all dates back to the penetrator/penetrated who/whom mindset. I forget which culture it was (Russia? Ancient Greece? The Taliban?), but the homophobia was along a very weird axis: gay male-on-male activity is ok as long as you’re the penetrator. If you’re the penetrated, the homophobia came out in droves.”
It was certainly true in ancient Rome. Among other examples, Julius Caesar had a relationship with the king of a client state as a young man, and jokes about it continued for the rest of his life.
@just nutha:
“Just for the record, I stopped reading and moved on before the end of sentence 3.”
Sorry, that’s not the record.
@grumpy realist:
@James Joyner:
Which is all well and good, but what about the ubiquity and popularity of Trans porn? Speaking from experience, the guys that are into that kind of porn don’t see women like me as women, but they definitely want to have sex with us.
Edited to add, in case you don’t know, this type of porn used to go by terms such as “shemale” or “ladyboy” which makes this a bit clearer if more gross.
accidental double post
@EddieInCA:
My guess would be it is a bit of each, but that more than the other two it is a film and tv thing. From my, admittedly much more limited*, experience in the industry the long hours and relatively short-term nature of the work (so having to hustle new work regularly) attracts people that are happy to be less tied down. An overbroad generalization that doesn’t apply to everyone in the industry and maybe not even most when I had my toe in it more than a decade ago, but we’re talking about population trends here. LA also attracts people that are less traditional and are more likely to be happy not being tied down. Younger generations also tend to be less hidebound to tradition. Add all that up and your experience isn’t all that surprising, though different than mine the better part of a generation ago.
* only a few years and never more than 2nd AD on low budget projects
@MarkedMan:
I don’t think there is one definition, which is the problem. Also, I try not to capitalize it.
For example, traditional intellectual conservatism was entirely opposed to the idea of populism, but MAGA conservatism is entirely about populism. These aren’t the same things. Who is the real “conservative?” Opinions vary.
@grumpy realist:
I read similar things about wives expecting their man to provide them with a certain lifestyle. I rarely encounter either of these cases in the real world, so I tend to think these aren’t that common.
@James Joyner:
I would like to see some data to support that. My sense is far different, considering how much I read about the supposed TERF problem.
@Andy:
With all seriousness, might I suggest a nice Transition for you. The number of men who expect women to handle everything far outstrips the number of supposed “gold diggers”. It has been wild to see how ingrained weaponized incompetence is for a huge population of men. At least 1/3 of male attorneys I deal with treat me as their other assistant instead of their peer.
TERFs are a huge problem. Especially because their absolute numbers are much smaller than the amount of noise they make is. There isn’t very many of them, they are just very loud and very certain.
@Andy: On quick search, most of the big national surveys (Pew, Gallup) don’t seem to break out their data by gender. A YouGov survey, which is likely more problematic methodologically, supports my view, with men being less supportive than women across the board, although by relatively small numbers.
@Moosebreath: I meant for the record in an informational sense, only. 😉
@Andy:
The TERF problem is a loud, outspoken, primarily online, minority.
The ‘golddigger problem’ also seems like it is pretty limited in scope. I have yet to meet a divorced person where this was an issue, much less THE issue.
Re: the man on the couch playing video games rather than pulling his weight trope, I think that particular stereotype is probably overblown, BUT there is a deeply culturally ingrained feeling among a not insignificant population of men that women are supposed to handle the household chores and raise the children that leads to many men pulling less than their weight around the house and with the kids. Of the three, that last is probably orders of magnitude more prevalent and more felt in the home.
@Beth: Mmm. It might be more of a case of “transgressive activity in the porn I watch”. Do they watch porn a lot, have become bored with “the standard stuff” and are looking around for something else that might turn them on? Is it something they really want to do? Or are they looking for something they can indulge in their minds “that’s really out there” while knowing full well they’re not at all interested in experiencing it in real life? A lot of women have what can only be described as “abducted by the Sheik” fantasies, but I doubt they’d like the same experience in real life.
Honestly, I don’t think we can conclude much from people’s porn viewing habits, unfortunately. Except that they have access to a credit card.
I could not access the underlying article but I think there is a strong statistical caution as the American tendency to treat Named Generations as if they are coherent and discrete things creates significant mirages – while understanding such things are rather better done under statistically defined birth cohorts moving through time (decade or whatever).
The article in The New York Times under the title “Millenials are not the Exception, they’ve moved to the right treating something of the numerical mirage generated by sloppy named Generation type anectdote to sloppy numbers analysis is suggestive.
This is not to take an opinion that the citations are wrong (nor correct), merely an observation that the numbers and evoked framing would merit great caution rather than taking as the point of departure
And I see this comment: @Matt Bernius: which I think confirms treating such with great caution as quite likely rather over-drawn numbers of dubious statistical robustness.
(and TERF… the very picture of the Faculty Loungism terminology and discourse that has infected American Left discourse…)
Yes, women are less terrified of LGBTQ people than men are. That’s why the GOP had to invent the ‘groomer’ slander. You can’t motivate women by threatening men’s fragile manhood, so you threaten the children. That gives them the excuse they need to turn into bug-eyed shrieking loons.
@just nutha:
I am not surprised, but resistance is futile (especially if less than 1 ohm).
My wife of 45 years is a liberal and I do, and have always done, at least my share of housework. I am all things kitchen, which includes all food shopping, and usually laundry as well. Trash goes without saying as well as heavy object manipulation. And occasionally I try to fix things before giving up and calling a guy.
Traditionally masculine men who love liberal women and understand they they carry half the load of housework must not be too terribly difficult. I’m one. Pretty sure there are others.
The claim to male exceptionalism went out the window many decades ago when women started working outside the home. Do you make enough to support a family on one income? If not then shove your 1950’s fantasies. And why in God’s name would you want to be the sole earner? To avoid loading the dishwasher? That’s asinine. Over the course of our marriage there’ve been times I carried the ball, times she did, but usually we both did. That’s a robust system that affords us maximum flexibility and survivability. Oh, and yeah, we had kids.
@Lounsbury:
I join you in frustration at the named generation thing. Defining sets of people based on silly criteria and then polling them does not yield useful data.
@James Joyner: I looked at that Yougov poll because I was curious whether it broke it into male R, male D, etc. Without that, I think the differences in male vs female could easily be covered by the difference in the number of each in the two parties.
@grumpy realist:
I get your point, with the caveat that my lived experience thinks there’s something deeper. For example I was at a club this weekend and got hit on by a very aggressive man. He made it very clear he wanted to have sex with me (and my friend) and that his understanding of me was that I was sort of a man and sort of a woman and either way he wanted to go. It was pretty gross even by my markedly low standards. As an aside, he very much wanted me to drink a “Hennessy and pineapple”.
@Lounsbury:
You realize that the term TERF was created by them to describe themselves? The fact that they keep trying to distance themselves from it is hilarious.
@Michael Reynolds: My husband is traditionally masculine and carries more than his share of the housework. He was on his own for years and as far as he’s concerned, having someone around to divide the work with was a major plus–it was never a question that the work would be shared.
For the most part, we can and do trade off jobs when necessary. I’ll deal with hauling the trash and recycling to the transfer station, and he’ll vacuum if I’m swamped with deadlines and can’t get to it. That’s how a household works.
The only thing I won’t touch is the snowblower, and that’s because he bought a big AF one that is too heavy for my 5′ frame to maneuver.
@Jen:
Well, only if you’re a rational human. I don’t cook often, but my wife is limited to, well, making coffee? Occasionally? OTOH I have zero patience with paperwork, so she pays the bills. From each according to their abilities.
@Michael Reynolds: Well, for precision my objection is one related to the incoherence and innumeracy that is fundamental to the broad bucket named Generations that USA is so fond of inventing (arising as I recall from the alchemy of Marketing rather than actual statistical population work).
It leads to gross self deception by collapsing demographic analysis (of which certainly age controlled cohorts are useful) into incoherent slogans/stereotypes, “Millenial” “Boomer” with inattention to actual cohorts and their progression in time, nd confusion of visible [online or voting e.g.] sub sets of a cohort for the entire cohort/presumptive Named Generation which leads to unpleasant surprises as less visible components age into visibility (as in voting).
We’re it not analytically obvious from actual proper statistics over time such Generations are mirages, I should be quite happy to name them.
But they are in fact exercises in rubbish self deception. Which is tolerable I suppose for marketing given they’re little more than alchemists…
@Beth: I should hardly “realise” something that is an untruth, as the referenced originator herself was and is a critic. But interesting to see the assertion as an aspect of rhetoric and rhetorical mythologisation as a political position tool.
Of course this factoid is utterly irrelevant to my observation on Faculty Loungism diacourse. Or perhaps more broadly BoBo Intelloism albeit perhaps a francisme.
@Beth: I was wondering what your experience has been in this area….
Based on my own experiences in Japan where I was hit on as a female gaijin, I’m thinking there might be a (Pokemon! Gotta catch them all!) attitude on the part of at least some guys as well. Pretty disconcerting to feel that you’re just one more experience some noob wants to check off on his sexual bucket list.
(TERFs have always reminded me of what the end of the second wave of feminism dwindled into: a bunch of radical Marxists in jeans and black turtlenecks seated around a table in NYC arguing about who was more feminist/Marxist than the other.)
I am speaking as the father of a 30-something daughter.
Our current polarization tells me that the core value differences between a (non-RINO) Republican and a generic Democrat are pretty damned wide.
I can’t imagine my daughter having a long term dating relationship with (let alone marrying) a current base Republican man. My daughter believes in the current liberal policies concerning: a woman’s right to make her own health care and reproductive decisions, freedom to fully and equally participate in career opportunities, equal rights under the law for LGTBQ persons, and so forth.
@Beth: Back in the Clinton administration, I thought the only way we would get marriage equality would be to make lesbian wedding porn, get it into the hands of every 14 year old, and wait a generation for fetishization to do the trick.
I remain convinced that attitudes on interracial couples changed when the internet made interracial porn easy to find without having to make eye contact with the guy at the adult video store. (If you look at polling numbers, interracial marriage only gets above 50% approval shockingly late)
So… I maybe all the trans porn is the start of something good.
@grumpy realist:
TERFs aren’t feminist, despite the name. Or radical, for that matter. They are trans exclusionary, though, so half their chosen acronym is correct.
They will sometimes cloak themselves in feminist language, but in ways that reinforce a patriarchy.
They are Trans Exclusionary Reactionary Fascists for the most part.
@Beth and @Grewgills:
You both may be right, and I’m not stating you’re necessarily wrong, but I don’t trust speculation and anecdote. As I said, I would like to see some actual data on this.
@James Joyner:
Thanks for the links!
For those on Reddit, I’d recommend the /askwomen and /askmen subreddits. The Reddit audience skews pretty young, but much of the discussion there seems to reflect what younger generations are thinking. But you won’t see those (and many other) subreddits because of the current blackout protest.
@Beth: Hennessey and pineapple? WTF? Hennessey and anything is a waste of good brandy. E&J* and pineapple? Weellllllll maybe, but it’s still pretty drinkable to add mixers to.
*The fortified spirit made from the wines in the cellars of Ernest and Julio Gallo of Modesto, CA.
@grumpy realist:
I’m sooooooo glad that someone not named cracker said this. (Although I did go to grad school and teach with some of them. Even without ever visiting NYC.)
@Just nutha ignint cracker: Pretty much any lefty group descends either into purity parades or hippie bashing.
Right wing groups get to do both at once.
And I imagine somewhere right now, at a No Labels meetup, someone is being chastised for having some form of position on anything.
@BugManDan: Yes, but that’s also circular in that part of the reason for the partisan gender gap is attitudes on LGBTQ issues.
@James Joyner: I had actually meant to point out that circularity in my reply and got distracted. But being Republican may be the cause rather than being male, or vice versa, or both.
@Andy:
While on the one hand, I agree that the terms “conservative,” “liberal,” “progressive,” etc. are used a bit too loosely in conversation (not just here at OTB, but in society broadly).
But I am also not sure what here, as well as in the other thread, as to the precise nature of your objection.
While, true, “conservative” does not equal “MAGA,” quite clearly MAGA is a subset of conservative. , is it not?
@Just nutha ignint cracker: I’m cranky about self-proclaimed “radical feminists” of whatever stripe because there’s a certain subset who keep accusing me of “betraying the feminist revolution” because I know math and physics. (My roommate from MIT had to deal with one of these idiots teaching her in law school. Seriously.)
@Andy:
@Andy:
I am not trying to be snarky here, but aren’t these two contradictory positions?
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yes, it’s a subset. For some reason, it’s the subset that always gets mentioned here, while the others aren’t. And in the previous thread, you specifically traced the rightward swing of young people to this specific subset – mostly based on a series of assumptions. You didn’t have any evidence and could not present any evidence when asked that this rightward swing was entirely a consequence of this subset. And that’s my objection – as I said in the last thread – focusing on this subset as the causative factor for a “conservative” turn while ignoring all the other subsets, or potential reasons millions of people might now self-identify as “conservative.”
And then, from there, you lept to the conclusions about what motivated those young men, which you characterized as being entirely about a “loss of power” which relies on an entirely different set of questionable assumptions.
No, in the first case, people are making claims, such as about men sitting in front of the TV playing video games instead of helping their spouses. My position is that if one going to make claims, then, at least IMO, those claims ought to have some evidentiary basis. I get that’s a common stereotype, but my question is, how common is that in reality? Not that I haven’t said the stereotype is false, but rather I’m doubtful that it’s as common as the stereotype would suggest. Hence my desire for some data on that.
In the second part, where I mention the two subreddits, I’m not making any claims or conjectures or promoting any stereotypes. I’m simply pointing to online spaces where mostly younger people discuss stuff, especially relationships. And I specifically qualified that with the phrase: “seems to reflect what younger generations are thinking” which certainly isn’t stating that these subreddits represent reality. But for Gen-Xers like us, it can be useful to discover things the some younger people care about that we don’t understand for reasons that should be obvious.
@Andy: Fellow Gen-Xer here, and mother of a 22 and 19 yr old.
I understand the ‘not all conservatives’ objection. For instance, my Dad who has always supported my non-girly interests and ambitions, is still technically a Republican, and definitely fiscally conservative in the traditional sense, but has not voted GOP outside of a primary nearly a decade because the party in his neck of Ohio has gone full QAnut MAGAt. At the same time, the most extreme MAGAts are the voice my kids’ cohort hears and associates with ‘conservative’. And that perception is reinforced by the lack of pushback by any prominent/powerful Republicans, and the constant refrain in the press, including conservative press, that no one dares oppose Trump because of the power of his base.
I think my daughter could therefore be forgiven for swiping left on a guy who identified as ‘conservative’. Moderate or not into politics would be okay, but calling yourself conservative can legitimately be seen as a red flag. Esp, if coupled with ‘Christian’, because a guy who would is likely to think she should be subservient to him is just not good life partner material (not to mention supporting or even being okay with harmful policies directed at her tans cousin).
@Andy:
Less couldn’t and more did not want to expend the energy to further the argument coupled with an honest uncertainty as to what you would consider evidence (with a side helping of I wasn’t sure you even understood my claim).
Don’t mistake a lack of willingness to go on a deep dive in a blog comment thread conversation with proof that your assertions were correct. I mean, that’s hardly fair, is it?
And I will be more direct about the data question: you seen to be dismissing some folks views as anecdotal (which is fair). But then saying “go look at Reddit,” which is just a bunch of self-selected anecdotes, doesn’t strike me as a data-driven response.
@Andy:
The term “pluto-populism” captures MAGA. This is a top down populism driven by Koch money and FOX/GOP propaganda. Very different from the prairie populism of the turn of the last century. Pluto-populism is designed to keep the proles voting for GOPs without giving them anything that costs the plutocrats. Abortion bans, but no healthcare. Pluto-populism is very conservative. And I suspect most populist movements have been pluto-populist. Hitler was funded by big business to suppress the communists and socialists.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Again, I was never asking for proof or a deep dive – merely some evidence supporting your assertions, which you and James keep repeating. I think it is entirely fair to ask you to defend your thesis with something more tangible than repetition.
Because those are two different things – as I explained. It’s not too much to ask people making claims to provide some evidence to support them. With regard to Reddit, I was making no claim that requires data, I was just pointing to one resource that might provide some views relevant to this thread. It’s no different than pointing to the NYT or any other content. Saying, hey, the NYT has some interesting perspectives that might be worth looking at is not something that requires a “data-driven” context. Now, if I had suggested that Reddit was the definitive source that explained some aspect of young people, I would expect to be called out and asked for evidence to support that claim. But I didn’t do that.
@bookdragon:
Hi, thanks for the comment. I have a 19yo daughter and 18yo son (and another son, 13).
I definitely get that. I’d just point out that perception isn’t necessarily reflective of reality. Maybe it’s because I know many self-described conservatives who are similar to your Dad. There certainly are a lot of #nevertrump conservatives, for example. “Conservative” means different things to different people.
“Christian” is becoming another term often used to describe right-wing political evangelicals while ignoring other types of Christians. James’ post here talks about the resentment of “white Christian men.” Ironically, the current President is white, carries a rosary with him 24/7, prays daily, and attends church regularly.
So I understand that people use these terms as red flags, but I think it’s important to note that using the terms this way paints with a very broad and inaccurate brush.
@Andy: I don’t disagree, esp wrt Christian. I live across the street from an ECUSA minister who is quite liberal wrt social issues and very active wrt the Jesus talked most about: caring for the poor and outcasts.
The issue is seeing conservative + Christian in a dating app profile. Either alone would be a ‘yellow light’ – proceed with caution. Both together? Full stop.
Again, from pov of my kids’ group. I’ve been happily married over 30 years so my only experience of dating apps was taking a look at a profile for my son. (I’ll note that he also filters based on ones with a long list of lefty/social justice issue profiles since he feels like that is just someone trying too hard too look super ‘good’ and he has no time for that kind of person).
@Andy: I’m not sure that I’m making any big claims here. The OP is based on an op-ed by two traditionalist conservatives looking at polling data about diverging trends in ideology along gender lines. Given that the divergence started around 2010, I speculated that, since that coincided with the rise of the Tea Party and the rapid takeover of the GOP by the populist wing, that the two were related.
Rather obviously, since I’m still relatively conservative—and very much White and male—it’s not my position that all White, male conservatives are alike. But I’m trying to explain the change in question, not the status quo ante. Something is causing this populist surge—not just here, but in the West writ large—and the diminished power of White, Christian, heterosexual/cisgender men is rather clearly a big part of that.
@James Joyner:
And that’s the specific part I’d like to see some evidence for. You, Steven, and others say this is “clearly” a big part of that – well, if it is so obvious, then it should be easy to provide some evidence supporting it. So far, no one in these threads (including commenters) has done that.
@Andy: That there’s a huge white nationalist component to Tea Party and their MAGA successors isn’t in serious dispute. Francis Fukuyama had a good survey in 2018:
There’s a lot more there and there are dozens of similar articles, some of which you’ve surely encountered. Identity politics aren’t the sole driver, of course, but they’re undeniably an important one.
@James Joyner & @Andy:
As we discussed a few days ago, there is a wealth of corollary evidence. I also know that Andy is looking for more causal evidence and, unfortunately, that’s a bit harder to find (in part because it’s somewhat difficult to study in a rigorous way). I’ve been doing some research into the topic and scanning papers to find examples of citations to back up those claims. So far I haven’t found a ton (or the ones that I have are more theorizing about a connection than citing specific studies).
I did find this on-point section in an Annual Review of Political Science (emphasis mine):
Source: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102503
I haven’t had a chance to dive into the supporting literature enough to see how they are backing up their claims.
James & Matt,
Thanks for continuing to engage.
That is something I agree with, and when it comes to identity politics, it’s not just white Christian men who want to protect group identity and status. So do white secular men, women, and all kinds of other groups. I think it’s missing a lot when one group’s identity politics is singled out as the cause of societal problems.
As Fukuyama mentions specifically, these tendencies can come from the right or left, and certainly are not dependent on skin color or religious affiliation.
@Andy: Oh, for sure. We talk quite a lot here about how identity politics have roiled the left, with White elite progressives having an agenda that puts them at odds with a lot of Black and Hispanic Democrats who are more socially conservative. But I think the Tea Party/MAGA block is bigger and more powerful. And, quite naturally, the group that has defined what it means to be “American” since the founding is unhappy to see the foundational beliefs of their culture challenged and changed.