A fissure between men and women is reshaping British politics

[IwantToRetire]

Among UK voters, gender is emerging as a new dividing line across political views and social attitudes – suggesting Britons are becoming more like Americans.
From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/01/21/a-fissure-between-men-and-women-reshaping-british-politics/
Also in full at https://archive.is/z5qZd

Nost sure if this is the right link, but article says it is based on NatCen - maybe this? https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/demographic-divides-what-drives-attitudes-uk-and-us

Sorry, that sounds like the criticism the whole of GC Mumsnet gets "oh, you Mumsnet GCs must really all be so privileged if you think trans women are a risk rather than rapey misogynist incels and other cis males".
This thread is about the fissure between males and females, part of this being the vast majority of young women tacking left, even to the likes of Polanski, and young men IMHO tacking differently.
My point is that it may be wishful thinking to assume young men are mostly left, even as far as voting Polanski. That's not my impression at all.
If I mention Starmer Davey Polanski Corbyn to the young men I meet, a volley of less than complementary words comes back.
But yes, I may be in an echo chamber.
It may also be a city v country thing. Young people are very different here in E. Anglia than they are in London (I moved a decade ago).
Up here you're less likely to get a Gaza march or pro trans demo, and more likely a protest against asylum hotels.
And I'm not saying women don't have it very hard...hey, I'm on Mumsnet, I read. You might find me one of the most sympathetic to womens trials and tribulations right wingers out there. Not trying to get a medal here, but I'm very aware.
My only point is, that in the politics fissure of women and men, left and right, the group I have most familiarity with ie men, in a lot of cases are hardening up, and this will mean veering Reform.
Where we likely agree is that there are no straightforward analyses, too many variables, few generalisations (meaning women are as easily fooled by Polanski as men are by Farage), but massive, maybe widening and irreparable differences.

Where we likely agree is that there are no straightforward analyses, too many variables, few generalisations (meaning women are as easily fooled by Polanski as men are by Farage), but massive, maybe widening and irreparable differences.
Exactly. While the backlash against feminism we're seeing is scary, what scares me more is the colonisation of feminism by the far left. All the women I admire have been cast out from the left. It was made very clear I was not welcome in the Labour Party any longer.

To keep it very short, I believe we address young men negatively or neutrally. It s either Adolescence dumped on them, or “let’s stop VAWG” like we don’t know where it’s coming from.

Where do we see “a real man doesn’t
etc.” or positive male models? I think it would work better.

My own impression is that a lot of the "moderate GC" people still don't realise that what they dismiss as "extremist views" amongst TRAs are actually the standard trans agenda.

I find time and again, even amongst some people who regard themselves as "pro-trans" - they say they think trans-identifying males should keep out of women's sports, and respect women's safe spaces etc, but they do so thinking that there's some kind of "trans mainstream" out there that agrees with these constraints.

When I tell them that pretty much all the TRAs would regard their stance as "transphobic", they dismiss that as unhelpful hyperbole on my part.

No it isn't
I gave very real reasons why young men might be dissatisfied.
If asked I can also.give very real reasons why women might not want men in women's bathrooms or self ID. More eloquent woman than me have pointed out the very real practical issues multiple times
However, the only reasons you can give for young men being dissatisfied with politics are surface level/culture war issues. Often the examples you give (Gillette) you then backtrack and say actually most men under 25 wouldn't know about those anyway. When I tried to meet you on your ground and talk about some of the real issues facing white working class men (who you mentioned first) you countered by implying most people today haven't faced real hardship. Which countradicts what you were saying earlier.
If we want to talk about white working class mens poor educational outcomes we can. But I doubt they have much to do with the film Adolescence (created by men, specifically to talk about the issues facing young men). Which is the only reason you can articulate for why young men might vote reform. Maybe there are better reasons out there. But you keep coming back to culture was stuff from 5 years ago.

How do you see the women younger than you who are en masse aligning to Polanski? Are they aware of his hypno claims, do they really see no issues with males in their spaces? Or is social justice activism, intersectional IDentarianism, such powerful forces, philosophies that were normalized in their young brains when growing up in high school and college, that together with the typical female traits of in-group dynamics, caring and putting others first, the nurturing instinct, that left trans politics hasn't so much replaced second wave feminist politics, it's actually replaced the previous organized religion?
Because women in favour of men in their sex based spaces is not politics but neo religion/caste/cult thinking.

I sort of agree, but the thing about positive male role models is they don't walk around saying I'm a positive male role model. They are usually just there, getting on with stuff. Anyone who puts themselves forward as a role model for young men is disproportionately more likely to be a grifter, a fantasist or someone with power fantasies. Of the top.of my head, some examples of positive masculinity might be:
Gareth Southgate
Mark Carney
Zelensky
My neighbour

They might all have some dark secret stuff that will come out later. Who knows. That's why it's dangerous to set people up on pedestals. And you can admire some aspects.of a person without admiring all of them because people are flawed. But most of the positive male role models young men meet are nobodies who wouldn't call themselves role models and probably aren't considered role models by the men that know them either. That's the way it's always been and the way it should be.

It's easier to talk about what bad behaviour is than what good.behaviour is, because what is "good" is so varied. There is no one way to be. However it disagree that you don't see much "a real.man would never..." Because that's at the heart of a lot of messaging.already.

Indeed, self-proclaimed good men are the worst of all, and I had Gareth Southgate in mind. He made a speech about it too if i remember. Our culture doesn’t really offer a channel, it’s sports talent, celebs, wealth display, etc.

I have never read the early works of Jordan Peterson but I suppose he tried in his way (before going off road) and look at the way he got vilified, especially by the progressive.

What did you mean by YMMV? I don't think you understand the meaning of irony.

I never understood the virulent reaction to Peterson, to the left he's almost as much a devil as Thatcher Trump Musk Vance Farage Tate.
What? For telling young men to find focus, motivation, self respect and respect for others, including women. To put aside selfishness for being good partners and fathers.
Sure, he can be pompous and verbose and prissy...but a hate figure?

Well, also he was a bit mad. And went more mad because its not a healthy place for anyone to be

Humans shouldn't be put on pedestals. If you do (or they do it to themselves) that opens them up to criticisms of how they aren't perfect. Vilification is an interesting turn of phrase because of Peterson is going to make himself/his suggested lifestyle a model for young men others are going to point out the flaws in his ideas AND the disconnect between himself and his ideals. That would be a personal attack, because as a self embodied "role model" it IS personal. But the alternative is not to critique at all.

The best role models are dead. The very idea that anyone needs to be spoon-fed positive role models via social media/YouTube etc is flawed. But if young men or anyone want to find their own positive depictions of masculinity/femininity/humanity then there are about 2000 years worth of literature available. And there are still positive (but flawed because that's how drama works) examples being made today. The existence of the Barbie movie doesn't erase that.

Most of the worst hate came first from the far left in response to his criticising trans people and later came from the far right in response to his stance on Israel. (A lot of his early hardcore supporters didn't like Israel/the Jews so there was a bit of a backlash)

I think he was flawed. I don't think he is evil. But he did try to mythologise himself and gathered quite a hardcore group of supporters around him who were sensitive to any criticism. But if you set yourself up as an ideal or offer self help,.you also open yourself up to critique. And any critique is seen as an attack by enemies and round and round it goes. I think he was too thin skinned to "monetise" his stance on social justice issues (his words). But it is a recipe for mental breakdown for anyone to be on the pedestal he put himself on. While some people were unjustly harsh i.thibk some correctly recognised he was setting himself up almost as a cultlike figure and it would end in tears. That doesn't mean tidying your room is a bad plan.

To be honest I can't for the life of me understand it. Maybe it's the Utopia myth, a way of identifying out of being female, we're all equal. I think of all the revolutions women have been at the heart of; only to be betrayed once power was achieved eg the French Revolution, feminists were guillotined.
There's also the generational thing of rejecting your mother's generation.
I also think it's a middle class thing.
Post modernism allows you to believe impossible things because there's no solid ground to stand on and they're already cushioned from reality.
It does bring me close to despair.

On one side, I think the Left is entrenched in the view that we are just people, individuals, not men or women. They have no reason to bother with us, we happily take second place.

And on the other, with postmodernism and relativism, you cannot talk morals or common good or common values when you have to accept every person can set their own rules, identify as they want, dispose of their bodies as they want, every (western) tradition is bad, must be deconstructed etc.

Common good and common sense have been shamed into silence. Hard for young people to find their purpose.

Well, he certainly rode that wave...right into the brick wall of mental illness.
I believe he's come around, which can only be positive.
And I see most of his pleas to young men to stand up straight as very much the antidote to Andrew Tate.
So, why is this vilified?
I've seen liberal commentators call him a cult of personality fascist.
For me, as a right winger somewhat wary of Trump Farage, anti the very online woke right, looking for a middle way in politics to return to, the hysterical gnashing of teeth of the left towards Peterson, amongst other figures, totally isolates me away from any chance of voting left in my lifetime.
IMHO Peterson should have been supported for being strict with wayward men, instead he was lumped in with Tate, Trump, Musk and Farage, as the enemy.

I wouldn't vilify that advice.
I think he was using that advice to build a cult of personality though. Or try to. And it did send him mad. I think that part of the criticism was justified. The fascist part was just because of the trans thing IMO.

But it was also very easy for him to turn any criticism of him into criticism of his message. Or to turn disagreement with some of his message with personal "villification". Thats the cult of personality stuff. It is unhealthy. Saying its unhealthy doesn't mean there is anything wrong with encouraging young men to stand up straight.

For example. His comments on addiction (and other problems) being a matter of willpower, that it's just a matter of not being weak WERE unhelpful/dangerous. Existing tried and tested treatments were castigated as weakness. (And of course, when he had a Benzo addiction, he dealt with it very differently). That's the kind of stuff, woven in with "common sense" suggestions like tidy your room that was potentially very harmful for young men who might have had issues themselves. Will powers very important. It's not the only thing that matters for having a happy succesful life. Is that me vilifying him by pointing that out?

A female equivalent would be a healthy eating influencer who intersperses sensible suggestions (eat lots of vegetables) with dangerous/unworkable ones (anyone can have my body if they just buy my supplements/you don't need Western medicine just probiotics). And is then found to have an eating disorder themselves they cure by being into a coma in Russia. Women like that exist and they are heavily castigated online.

I do get the line from very influential/counter culture tripping into guru/worldwide fame and visibility into prissy thin skinned and maybe even hypocritical.
I mean, who is getting it right?
I'd say JKR is unusual in being a public figure who's forthright and fearless, but hasn't descended into parody or self aggrandizing disappointment.
Looks like Mark Carney is being built into some sort of liberal third way warrior/maybe even role model for men based on one speech that's tacitly anti Trump, and generally anti populist.
Good luck with his ethos becoming the voice of reason for men, he being one of the most prominent gate keepers for the system that's led us to this sorry state precludes him being an honest broker for men going forwards in the 21st century.
Nope, the male role models may genuinely have to be...everyday men themselves. Because there are no prominent visible men right now seemingly saying very much that's relevant.
Women? Plenty, starting with JKR.

The Green Party especially, and Labour to great extent subscribe to a philosophy that people should have extra assistance in the form of government initiatives, legal protections, information campaigns,, not on the basis of their actual life circumstances but on whether they fit into an identified group (more of which seem to be randomly discovered over time). Reform don't subscribe to this philosophy.

The average UK man (who will also be white, heterosexual and will identity as male) won't be in any of those groups. It really shouldn't be any mystery at all as to why men of any age may be more likely than women to support Reform rather than the Greens, noting that many men do support the Greens and women Reform regardless. There's nothing in it for them and they are likely to reject the premise anyway as no one likes being preached at about how inherently awful they are.

Nb this is consistent with every survey on trans rights: men are consistently less supportive of them than women. I expect there's a variety of reasons men hold, including suspicion of other men's motives, but also being less likely to have a place in the oppression hierarchy and so rejecting the whole idea.

I agree. If everyone has their own truth, there is no actual truth. Authenticity is all that's left, and Trump, for all his lies, is authentic.

Another point to note (sorry for the triple post) is that a person is more like to hold progressive views if they've been to university or are more academic. Young women are more likely to undertake higher education than young men.

I think this leads to the belief that progressive views are the more educated ones. But you can flip this right around and say no, its that progressive ideas are just the current consensus, leastways in the arts: in the past they were conservative, leastways in some places. If you step outside the consensus the consequences are severe, as Kathleen Stock could tell you.

Think of the effect that is likely to have, not just on actual undergraduates, but people considering whether or not they'll go to university at all. I expect the academics themselves would say there's no such issue, but they would say that, wouldn't they? Someone upthread made the interesting point that Adolescence was written by men. Whether that's true or not I don't know, but I think it's relevant to point out that to be in the position of writing such a programme you need to have passed through the university purity test.

The best kind of parasocial relationship is no parasocial relationship at all.

. You are the one trying to tie real grievance to automatic support for the right. When the facts don't show that at all. The 14% of young men who like Farage aren't the only ones that matter, and they aren't the flag bearers for male rationality or resentment.

This is a misreading I think.

There is a significant difference between tying a reason to more males voting right, and saying that reason means males will automatically vote right.

The reason is accounting for a change within, or a difference between, groups. Not saying everyone in any group will all have the same response.

I think you are right, there needs to be a positive ideal. One that appeals to young men.

The rather wet version of manliness some women seem to want to encourage does not seem to particularly appeal to many young men.

I think that the reality is that the most important thing is real examples in boys lives, but many boys don't have male figures in their lives, or not particularly positive ones. My dp grew up in a family that was massively matriarchal, which was pretty common in that country, at least among wc people. The women ran the family, and the hierarchy of importance in his life was mother-sister-aunt-brother. Father wasn't even on the list - generally they were friends of your mum.

I don't think it's that bad in the UK, however, there are communities that are like that and it's much more common than it used to be for kids to have no father figure.

But even aside from that, culturally, we seem to really shy away from heroic examples of honourable masculinity, almost as if it's embarrassing. A lot of heroes are more like antiheroes, or sometimes cynical, or even actual criminal types in some subcultures.

Well give me some examples of "nonwet masculinity" then.
I can think of many aspects of people In admire. But I wouldn't hold them up as role models in their totality because many of them have very dark sides. That's the problem with role models. But if you think there are some non-wet masculine males out there the left have been unjustly defaming then let me know who...

I actually think this obsession is a modern one. Homers Odyssey for example is full of heroic behaviour. But a lot of the individuals are also very bad people, weak willed, sullky, cruel. I don't think they thought those attributes were positive. They were just interested in human nature in its entirity. That's different for calls for a masculine superman to show young men the way.

Adolescence is a really good piece of drama, but I agree with you on most of these things.