this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
41 points (97.7% liked)
CanadaPolitics
2232 readers
77 users here now
Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is interesting but disappointing here is that Conservatives lead with under 35s. I thought that Conservatism here would die off with the boomers but clearly not.
Young men are very conservative right now.
There’s a lot of right wing content like Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate that is popular in that age group. YouTube is a massive rabbit hole for that stuff.
It’s also not easy for them to get jobs and housing is unaffordable to them. There’s a strong anti “woke” sentiment that men are getting left behind by feminism and that masculinity is being punished in society.
I don’t think we can just brush it off as simply toxic masculinity, there’s truth to men’s issues that need to be addressed: men are pursuing post secondary education less than ever, they don’t believe they can get ahead, male suicide is higher, male loneliness is higher, there aren’t enough clear role models of men in jobs like teaching, the traditional archetype of men as providers is becoming unattainable as cost of living increases faster than wages.
We can’t treat this the way Tate and co do with their greedy take everything you can hostile approach, but Pollievre and the right wing speak directly to their anger and acknowledge them in a way nobody else is.
Anyway, that’s my rant. The men’s liberation community has some good discussions (don’t know how to link it on Mlem).
I’m an egalitarian/humanist and that includes supporting feminism. There’s room to help everyone.
https://lemmy.ca/c/mensliberation
I understand that conservative movements have done an effective job at aligning our culture's concept of masculinity with conservative values.
What I don't understand is that the stat is "under 35's", not "males under 35". One would think that for every man that feels progressive politics is for triggerable-purple-haired-whales and no-good-lazy-soyboys, there would be more than one woman that feels conservative politics is for abusive-crypto-fascist-dicks and no-good-vacuous-pickmes.
Men are only half the population, so what's drawing women to conservative politics?
Women being allies to conservative men. Religious women (women are generally more religious than men) also tend to be more conservative.
Furthermore I think a lot of young women are disillusioned by the “having it all” lifestyle that was promised to them by feminism. Having a dream career and raising a family (without waiting until 35 to have kids) is extremely unattainable for all but the very rich.
I also think a lot of young women, like their young male counterparts, feel that housing is unattainable. Back in the time before women entered the workforce in a major way a house was genuinely affordable on one income. Now that women are nearly equal participants in the labour force it shouldn’t be a surprise that it takes two (upper middle class) incomes to be able to afford a house. What once was an option (a career for a woman) became a requirement. Through no fault of anyone, that can leave people feeling cheated by the system.
It’s a Red Queen’s race
Yes it should. The working class is supposed to get compensated fairly for increases in productivity.
Billionaires are right there.
The issue is that productivity gains aren’t equally distributed across the economy. A factory worker today is probably 100x more productive than a factory worker in the early 1900s. However, a hairdresser today has exactly the same productivity as one from a hundred years ago.
So it would stand to reason that the hairdresser should see no increase in pay at all due to no increase in productivity. Yet a haircut today costs a lot more than it did a century ago. Why is this? Because no one would work as a hairdresser today at century-ago wages. They would go work in a factory instead.
And so increases in productivity — even if they’re restricted to only one sector of the economy — cause inflation across the whole economy. This is called the Baumol Effect. This inflation means that a lot of the wage gains of the factory-worker get eaten up by the increased cost of haircuts, education, healthcare, and countless other goods and services.
It should also be noted that none of the productivity gains have led to an increase in the availability of land in desirable areas. When something is limited in supply but not demand it should be no surprise that the price goes up.