Far More Women than Men Voted for Carney. Why? (thetyee.ca)

submitted 2 days ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Canada’s recent federal election suggests a growing gender divide in political preferences.

Polling indicated women voters leaned strongly toward the Liberals, while an increasing number of men — particularly younger men — gravitated toward the Conservatives.

This polarization was not simply a matter of partisan preference but reflected deeper social, cultural and economic realignments rooted in identity politics and diverging values.

The gender gap also mirrors patterns across western democracies, where far-right populist parties increasingly draw male support through nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-feminist narratives, while women — especially racialized and university-educated — opt for progressive parties promoting equality and social protection.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute "source demographic" with "individual in that demographic?" Because that's all it takes -- both for bigotry to take root and for it to be perceived by those individuals. In pop culture terms, I have no idea when if ever it stopped. Regarding men specifically, I only witnessed it start half-heartedly/infrequently in the last few years.

Power imbalance is a natural systemic issue in so far as it sometimes having natural sources/root causes, but more importantly it's inherent propensity toward positive feedback loops.

"Eat the rich" is an example of messaging that has completely lost the plot of systemic issues while highlighting the outgroup and not coming only from fringe extremists. Sure, it means "redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all" but it sure doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't have the power and popularity that comes from appealing to the baser, target-hungry instincts of all humans.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sure, it means “redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all” but it sure doesn’t say that.

So what's the issue, again? Just that it sounds scary?

Why is "eat the reach" messaging that "lost the plot" if the slogan does exactly what it's supposed to do (be powerful and popular, appealing to human nature)?

And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute “source demographic” with “individual in that demographic?”

I don't know, you tell me. I don't see rich people getting the short end of a stick because out there a bunch of protestors are holding "eat the rich" plaques. I still don't quite get what's this phrase being used as an example for given it's so inconsequential.

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

Maybe sleep on it and try coming back with fresh eyes. I'm getting exhausted just looking at all the threads to pluck in this comment. And I sincerely mean no disrespect nor judgement, but seeing this conversation through is starting to look like more work than I'm personally willing to invest while I'm supposed to be on vacation.