Reasons for not moving right like young men

[Warmlight1]

Are women put off the right because of outright boorishness and right wing female Mps who are promoted withing a very constrained patriarchy and consequently end up not making sense? Is it also to do with the ingressing on women's right by the ultra religious?
Are public services more important to women than men? Was specifically female leadership significant in New Zealand during the pandemic and ultimately safer and was that about gender?
Or something else?
Brexit?
Why is there a difference of direction?

That's true to an extent about migration. But it's also true that one of the issues people had with freedom of movement in the EU was that there was no control over who came and worked here from Europe. One of the selling points of Brexit was that "we could have a points based immigration system like Australia" where people with skills that were in short supply in the UK could come, rather than just letting people with an EU passport in. And that's exactly what DID happen. And so we had larger numbers of people coming from commonwealth countries with skills in plumbing etc. But that caused further frustration because now people from non EU countries are coming and driving down wages in plumbing/roofing etc...
But we have a points based migration system now...

The Victorians built a lot of that great infrastructure by paying large groups of manual labourers low wages..often those workers were migrants from abroad (Irish navies). Also, there were less safety standards and less public ability to block building said infrastructure. I don't think Greenbelt was a thing then.

We absolutely could recreate that now, by hiring foreign workers to come and work for a pittance thus driving down overall labour costs, and by getting rid of regulations and by ignoring complaints about tearing up the countryside etc.

The problem is, the first parts of it directly contradict Tempest Tosts (fair) point about too much migration directly undercutting wages. And the latter part would upset a lot of people who are already upset at Labours comparatively modest proposals to change planning law.

I do agree there is elite failure. I think that successive governments have got used to legislating in the hope public sentiment will catch up with the legislation rather than the other way round. But I think casting elite failure as a failure to be able to act like the Victorians is complicated because it depends on what you actually want from your elites. Do you want strong leaders who will ride roughshod over public sentiment to get things done, or the opposite. My opinion is we have had too much of the first option not too little

Another way of looking at it is that governing a modern state is hard. So is delivering big infrastructure projects. The Victorians were world leaders in design, manufacturing etc. We like to think that we're at least as good at everything as previous generations but maybe we're just not: maybe previous generations had better and cleverer leaders.

The Victorians built a lot of that great infrastructure by paying large groups of manual labourers low wages..often those workers were migrants from abroad (Irish navies). Also, there were less safety standards and less public ability to block building said infrastructure. I don't think Greenbelt was a thing then.

That's not really correct. Other than, for instance, the Irish navvies digging canals, most of the infrastructure works required skilled labour, such as with the construction of schools, sewers, railways. A bricklayer would, for instance, be earning between two and two-and-a-half times the rate of a basic labourer (and you would have a lot of bricklayers on these infrastructure projects). Most labour was local, with the exception of the highly-skilled (stonemasons) or very low skilled (navvies) who would follow the work around the country. And remember that, in the nineteenth century, the Irish weren't migrants from abroad; Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.

It is true that safety standards were lower, though these projects were neither terribly dangerous in absolute or relative terms; it was far more dangerous to work in the mines, or as a sailor during the period. Urban green belts did not exist, but not really significant for these conversations, as it more specifically applies to urban development than infrastructure builds; that it ran through the London green belt did not significantly hinder the construction of the M25 in the 1970s and 1980s, for instance.

Or.....stirring up fear of the ' other' is a not so clever strategy to keep the less well off at each others throats. It diverts them from seeing wealth gaps ever widening.
Don't you think that there's no real excuse for poverty? Anywhere?

Moving right like young men? Latest evidence shows young men's views haven't shifted much. The biggest shift is young women moving left, to the batty end of ideology. This would back up the trans support and how it grew so rapidly. Women holding most jobs in teaching and EDI jobs.

I think there needs to be a major debate on women being hoodwinked and how easy it was.

Sorry, have gone back to thread title, had read some interesting stuff but can't find. Will try and find links

Doesn't right and left presuppose a centre? The centre has shifted right there's no doubt. We are looking at the right internationally finding excuses for shooting citizens in the street in the great free democracy. That indicates a pretty big shift of the centre rightwards. So are men staying put or are they just moving with that shift? I think that it's relative personally. I'm assuming your comments re women are intended to trigger.

Not at all @Warmlight1 I consider we have a responsibility to look at all angles and I would love a really big debate on women and gender. We miss an opportunity if we don't consider our part in the growth of trans ideology. If we don't debate, then this will happen again and we still wont have any answers

Right and left in politics exist because they are fundamentally different ideologies; the centre isn't a new ideology but draws from the other two.

The right stands for hierarchical thinking, small government, deregulation, lower taxes, social conservatism.
The left stands for community thinking, social safety nets, higher taxes, more government involvement.
The left wing system of social housing, trade unions, free to access healthcare & schooling, and a benefits safety net is one way to create a stable society, conservatism is the right wing, and women tend to realise that left wing policies benefit the less well advantaged.

Authoritarianism is an automatic reaction to a perceived threat. Its a survival strategy which can work for a small group dealing with an emergency, but in modern times & complex situations can be maladaptive and create risks; people can be too scared to act independently in a crisis, a society can be so rigid it stagnates, and cannot adapt to change.

The current left is gravitating away from community thinking and towards authoritarianism, and this is happening because purity spirals have replaced analysis and debate.
(A purity spiral is ... a form of groupthink in which it becomes more beneficial to hold certain views than to not hold them, and ... expressing doubt, nuance, or moderation is punished - Wikipedia)

The question is, is this a reaction to a perceived threat, or is it a deliberate strategy of entryism?

We are looking at the right internationally finding excuses for shooting citizens in the street in the great free democracy

Why are you continually assuming that what is happening in the USA will happen here? If the main parties fall here, the Greens are just as likely to take power as Reform.

And, while we're at it, most of Europe is further to the Right than the UK. Why don't you catastrophise about them?

On old school left wing issues the overton window has shifted massively right. So the austerity ideas in place since 2008 are now mainstream whereas before they would be considered very hardcore Tory. Whilst even the incredibly milquetoast ideas of Labour are being described as far left by some of the UK media. When before they would be incredibly liberal/labour right or conservative left. And the further left parties (Green etc) are really putting forward moderate left positions.
Social issues are a different matter and a mixed bag.
So I don't think it's fair to say woman have veered left while men have stayed on track. It's much more complicated than that and just looking at voting intentions doesn't tell you why people are voting for eg Green or Reform. Its not fair to say all women voting reform are being hoodwinked by their pro trans policies. There are a thousand other reasons to vote Green. Andy more than to say men voting Reform are doing it because they hate women. It's just quite nonsense local pseudo-psychologising. The other side must have irrational/psychological reasons for voting. While my side are motivated by logic like me.

Alternatively there are really vulnerable transpeople and there are people who don't give a monkeys but find this a great way to divide- women from women, women from men.
Even trans politicians are saying- why the political.obsession? That insistence on that discussion at all times- it's a cynical strategy.
I'd rather talk about all the things that affect my life and those of others. Transpeople share the same planet.

And are these trans politicians speaking out against medical experimentation on children. Children are the most vulnerable category of all

Mate, start a thread.

Alternatively there are really vulnerable transpeople and there are people who don't give a monkeys but find this a great way to divide- women from women, women from men.
Even trans politicians are saying- why the political.obsession? That insistence on that discussion at all times- it's a cynical strategy.
I'd rather talk about all the things that affect my life and those of others. Transpeople share the same planet.
And so, after pages of comnents, we get to the nub of it.
Women STFU.

Even trans politicians are saying- why the political.obsession? That insistence on that discussion at all times- it's a cynical strategy.
I'd rather talk about all the things that affect my life and those of others. Transpeople share the same planet.

You're just stringing words together. 'Political obsession'
The obssession comes from the left, denying reality, defying the law, demolishing free speech, bullying and punishing dissent.
The Greens are just as likely to deliver an end to democracy as Reform.

True, but perhaps the mistake is to see the Greens as in any sense "left wing". In England at least their roots are in the pastoralist fascists of the 20th century. Opponents of industry, especially mechanised farming. Oswald Moseley (of the British Union of Fascists) was one of the founders of the Soil Association. Environmentalism is anti-working class and fundamentally anti-human. A frequent claim of the Greens is that there should be many fewer humans, especially in poor countries. A thoroughly regressive movement, even if some of its objectives (like preventing climate change) are warranted.

When that delightful fellow heading Extinction Rebellion was asked what he felt the world's population should be, he answered about 700k, and it should be made to happen.
Remind me what the population currently is, and how getting to 700k could "be made to happen"?

So young women are actually becoming more right wing?

If, as seems to be happening in China, all people were all well fed, with a low infant mortality and confidence in a reasonably prosperous future, and the birth rate fell to stabilise the world population then that might not be a bad thing: but I don't think that's what the Greens have in mind.

I don't think China is doing at all well.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/chinas-population-falls-fourth-straight-year-2026-01-19/
Policymakers have made population planning a key part of the country's economic strategy and this year Beijing faces a total potential cost of around 180 billion yuan ($25.8 billion) to boost births, according to Reuters estimates.
Key costs are the national child subsidy, which was introduced for the first time last year, as well as a pledge that women throughout pregnancy have "no out-of-pocket expenses" in 2026, with all medical costs, including in vitro fertilisation (IVF), fully reimbursable under its national medical insurance fund.
China has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at around 1 birth per woman, well below the 2.1 replacement rate. Other East Asian economies including Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore have similarly low levels of fertility at around 1.1 births per woman.

I think that even outside of the UK, the Greens have typically existed outside of traditional left/right labels. They have more recently been perceived as left and I think have sometimes been affected in their policies by a lot of self-identified left wing people joining Green parties and changing the kinds of policies they support.

But increasingly I think left and right are not useful labels and that's a limit in these kind of polls. What does it mean if women are becoming more left, if that means on the one hand embracing neomarxist identity politics, and on the other abandoning all the traditional economic ideas of the left like protecting industry and anti-globalism?

hat incidentally is why I actually do not give two shits when people come on FWR and accuse people of abandoning the left, the left they are talking about has nothing that I can see to do with actual leftism.

A lot of the men I see talking about this are in fact pretty much where they have always been policy wise. One thing I have noticed is that men seem more likely to resent policy approaches they feel turn them into a recipient of the charity of the state. What they want is independence and dignity in their work, safe neighbourhoods and to largely be left alone.

Perhaps your last paragraph has picked up on something, namely the meaning of independence for men and women.
In a money based economy, the independence of a woman looking after small children is precarious.
If she stays at home, her partner may or may not deign to give her any or enough money. She and the child have no income of their own. Even if the relationship becomes abusive, she is stuck.
If she prefers to maintain her independence by working, employers may or may not pay her enough for childcare to be affordable.
In both cases she's better off, and at least has more choices, if the state provides some assistance ( eg child allowance, free childcare hours etc) that is based on rules for eligibility rather than personal whims and moods, or market forces.

Having lived in Beijing, i can tell you that it’s not really feasible to have more than one child unless you are very wealthy. Apartments are relics of the one-child policy (how many could you have in a two bedroom?) and school is so competitive, so you just have to sink so many resources into your child.

I know they outlawed private tutoring to somewhat fix this problem but … it’s spiritual in nature. You cannot accept a child just doing ‘ok’ in life, it’s a huge loss of face.

(I think the same dynamic happens in South Korea)

Thanks for the Hope not Hate mention - I took a look & they do some really good investigative work. I saw their profile of the American eugenicist, Simone Collins - was she the woman you mean?