I am suspicious right off the bat..."marriage" is an abstract concept, how can something be good or bad news for it? one of my ongoing pet peeves is outlets like the Atlantic publishing articles...
Exemplary
This is bad news for marriage.
I am suspicious right off the bat..."marriage" is an abstract concept, how can something be good or bad news for it?
By Lyman Stone and Brad Wilcox
one of my ongoing pet peeves is outlets like the Atlantic publishing articles like this that present themselves as neutral thinkpieces, while laundering the political motivations of their authors.
Brad Wilcox is "Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies."
the author bios, at the very bottom of the article, include some of those affiliations, but curiously leave off AEI:
Lyman Stone is a research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies.
Brad Wilcox, sociology professor and director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, is the Future of Freedom Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies.
the Institute for Family Studies, despite the generic-sounding name, seems like they push conservative "family values" ideas. from InfluenceWatch:
Institute for Family Studies features several books on marriage and family life. Soul Mates by IFS senior fellow Brad Wilcox and sociology professor Nicholas Wolfinger argues that church attendance improves the lives of black and Hispanic couples. Gender and Parenthood by Brad Wilcox and child psychiatrist Kathleen Kline discusses the complementary roles of biological mothers and fathers, as well as the impact of parenting practices on children.
their funding comes from sources like the Bradley Foundation, which funds numerous conservative causes as well as being founded by (get your bingo board out) one of the original members of the John Birch Society.
anyway, back to the article. what's the first source they reference? a survey from AEI, the conservative think tank that both authors are affiliated with (and that affiliation is not disclosed in the article or their author blurbs):
The Survey Center on American Life, a project of the American Enterprise Institute, recently found...
they, as far as I can tell, are just presenting what they see as a problem, not proposing any solutions:
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.
but knowing that both authors are "family values" conservatives, I think I can take a guess at what their solution would be, if they included it...liberal women should get over themselves and marry conservative men? because otherwise something something declining birthrates.
a liberal woman marrying a conservative man is, big shock, an inherently unequal exchange. the man might have to listen to his wife talk about Black Lives Matter or something...and meanwhile the woman might have a husband who doesn't believe she has the right to get an abortion for an unwanted or unviable pregnancy.
Why does it always seem like these enlightened centrist both-sideser types turn out to be conservatives in disguise? "Political division is destroying marriage!" -says the "neutral" but secretly...
Why does it always seem like these enlightened centrist both-sideser types turn out to be conservatives in disguise? "Political division is destroying marriage!" -says the "neutral" but secretly family values religious conservative who votes for the people and policies causing the divide in the first place
I imagine because they know, deep down, that their ideas are unpopular and thus they can't afford to be upfront with them. Especially if you're younger, you're well aware that most people your age...
I imagine because they know, deep down, that their ideas are unpopular and thus they can't afford to be upfront with them. Especially if you're younger, you're well aware that most people your age are more progressive than you. Unfortunately, instead of triggering a reaction of "well hmm, maybe that should encourage me to introspect about my ideas", it tends to lead to doubling down.
If you enter this conversation with the idea that "they" should be more introspective (i.e. because they're "wrong"), then it certainly sounds like you're not being very introspective about your...
If you enter this conversation with the idea that "they" should be more introspective (i.e. because they're "wrong"), then it certainly sounds like you're not being very introspective about your ideas, either. Things like interracial marriage were seen as minority and deeply unsettling perspectives, once. Thank God we didn't let popularity get in the way of them.
What introspection do we need to do if we see conservatives treating women like objects they can own. Wanting to get rid of no fault divorce, not allowing them to make their own body decisions. I...
What introspection do we need to do if we see conservatives treating women like objects they can own. Wanting to get rid of no fault divorce, not allowing them to make their own body decisions. I know why women put up with conservative men in the past, because they couldn't open their own bank account or get a job. Now we can do anything we want, including not being wife's or even friends with people that want to do us harm.
Unpopular != wrong. Not only is there no true right or wrong when it comes to these opinions (though I think most people could agree on a certain number of rights and wrongs), we're talking about...
Unpopular != wrong. Not only is there no true right or wrong when it comes to these opinions (though I think most people could agree on a certain number of rights and wrongs), we're talking about dating, marriage, and relationships. That means what matters is how amenable other people are to your opinions.
That being said, I think anytime someone's opinions or actions are met with disagreement and/or hostility, the correct response is introspection. I just did it myself when you responded. It doesn't necessarily have to result in a changing of opinions, but it can.
To use your and my comments as an example, if I read your comment and decided no, you're wrong, and I'm going to dig this hole about 3 feet deeper, then that's my prerogative. But that means I shouldn't necessarily expect you to swipe right on me, or for us to have a fun night out sometime, or even have a big happy family.
Not surprising on a number of levels. First, the divide between the political left and right increasingly has less to do with policy and more to do with values. It's difficult for someone on the...
Not surprising on a number of levels.
First, the divide between the political left and right increasingly has less to do with policy and more to do with values. It's difficult for someone on the religious right to accept that behaviors they consider morally abhorrent are accepted and even celebrated on the left as expressions of personal freedom. Likewise, the moral policing of the right morphs into bigotry and discrimination from a leftist perspective. People aren't rejecting partners based on tax policy, they're encountering real gaps in shared values and beliefs.
For women in particular, modern society has finally evolved to a point where women are not dependent on marriage for survival. In the past, women couldn't vote, have a bank account, own property, or have reliable control over their own reproduction. Settling down with someone was a necessity of survival rather than a romantic choice. Women are now embracing their personal freedom of choice and are consequently more choosy about their partners, wanting them to connect on a deeper level and contribute more to the relationship/household than was expected in the past. When their partner doesn't live up to their standards, they are more likely to leave and seek a better partner than settle and tough it out. Women have generally embraced their freedoms and see the regressive policies of the right as a threat to their lifestyle, driving them further left. The mask has come off on the right, with events aimed at young conservative women boiling down to "give up your dreams and go back to the kitchen."
Young men seem to be struggling to adjust to this new dating reality, most notably demonstrated by the rise of the "incel" community. As women become more discriminating in their mate selection, those left behind become frustrated and some dig into the entitlement of previous generations rather than looking inward and working to improve the flaws that failed them in the dating arena. Right-wing influencers like Andrew Tate swoop in and further the divide by blaming the women and teaching misogyny rather than actual self-improvement, further radicalizing them and pushing their ideology further to the right even as their counterparts move left.
Just a brief note to mention that not all marriages are straight. Calling this "bad for marriage" is as absurd as calling Grindr "bad for sex." Some folks are looking for something else.
Just a brief note to mention that not all marriages are straight. Calling this "bad for marriage" is as absurd as calling Grindr "bad for sex." Some folks are looking for something else.
I do wonder if there's any decrease in what the article calls 'homogamy' at all, or if these increasingly left wing women are just dating other left wing women. LGBTQ identification has certainly...
I do wonder if there's any decrease in what the article calls 'homogamy' at all, or if these increasingly left wing women are just dating other left wing women. LGBTQ identification has certainly trended up amongst the young'uns.
about one in five young single adults today will have to put a ring on someone outside their ideological tribe if they wish to marry
Interesting read illustrated by data. With the growing divide, I do wonder how that affects openness to change views for individuals. The desire/drive for a relationship can be pretty strong for...
Interesting read illustrated by data. With the growing divide, I do wonder how that affects openness to change views for individuals. The desire/drive for a relationship can be pretty strong for many. Are men more willing to consider or change views to find a partner or are women? Is there an opportunity for a left wing male relationship advice guru to sweep in and show young men they can change their views and land dates?
Completely anecdotal but I’ve been hearing more and more about men hiding their conservative views and even pretending to agree with it outspoken liberal women when they bring up women’s rights in...
Completely anecdotal but I’ve been hearing more and more about men hiding their conservative views and even pretending to agree with it outspoken liberal women when they bring up women’s rights in early dates only to backtrack later after the relationship becomes serious or label themselves as feminists but they actually don’t support body autonomy or think insert sexist thing is actually sexist ect.
So it seems to me that these men are well aware that supporting the dismantling of women’s rights is unattractive to women but not enough to reflect on their views, just enough to make sure they don’t let the woman find out on a first date.
That would be unhealthy for everyone involved. At best you'd get a bunch of fakers, and relationships between people who aren't compatible based on one of them hiding their actual opinions for...
Is there an opportunity for a left wing male relationship advice guru to sweep in and show young men they can change their views and land dates
That would be unhealthy for everyone involved.
At best you'd get a bunch of fakers, and relationships between people who aren't compatible based on one of them hiding their actual opinions for years or decades until the relationship is established and eventually the guise fades away.
I think there's a difference between hiding ones' views and being deceitful and an opportunity to actually get people to assess their stated politics and change their views. I think part of the...
I think there's a difference between hiding ones' views and being deceitful and an opportunity to actually get people to assess their stated politics and change their views. I think part of the problem with many politics today is the lack of critically assessing personal views, and the lack of a relationship and/or possibility of creating one is one of those things that is capable of piercing that veil.
While I wish this was the case, there are many a story of women dealing with men being deceitful on their political leanings. TwoX and other women centric forums have had near constant streams of...
While I wish this was the case, there are many a story of women dealing with men being deceitful on their political leanings. TwoX and other women centric forums have had near constant streams of women being fed up with the dating scene due to terrible first dates or discovering months in that the men they are dating lean far-right. Unfortunately, the men who typically hold those political views are not going to have an introspective revelation when they're refused and will more likely lie in order to sleep with someone. When sex is the goal and a meaningful relationship is not, rethinking political affiliations is not going to be valued as the essiest route in comparison.
Yeah but you do you think that's going to be the message people get? You can't tiptoe around the truth you're speaking and when the truth you're speaking is "hold this view if you won't get sex"...
Yeah but you do you think that's going to be the message people get?
You can't tiptoe around the truth you're speaking and when the truth you're speaking is "hold this view if you won't get sex" that's what people are going to hear.
If you're going to convince people by telling them that they should respect bodily autonomy, they're going to be convinced by that argument by default. They might be convinced if they speak to women who hold that view and they are convinced by their experiences.
There are effective ways to communicate with people and ineffective ways. Stating something without any nuance or elaboration like that will certainly not get many bites, but framed and explained...
There are effective ways to communicate with people and ineffective ways. Stating something without any nuance or elaboration like that will certainly not get many bites, but framed and explained in the right way may make a portion of people search inward.
I think it would be extremely hard to convince a young man who's already gone down a particular rabbit hole of right wing dating advice to listen to someone from the other side, though. It's hard...
I think it would be extremely hard to convince a young man who's already gone down a particular rabbit hole of right wing dating advice to listen to someone from the other side, though. It's hard to imagine more reasonable advice having the raw appeal to a lonely young man that something like pick up artistry and the idea that you can have a woman that will do whatever you want and you'll get all the sex you ever wanted just by acting a certain way does. Like, if someone's already been sold on that fantasy, what does it take for them to give it up? And would they give it up for more moderate dating advice, or would they slide into incel communities like a lot of dudes have?
I'm definitely not the expert here, being female and married. But it does make me sad seeing so many dudes slide into this hole of misery, and making the women they date miserable too. I'm glad I got married young and that was luckily not a mistake, I'm not sure I'd make it in today's dating world of apps and the red pill and PUAs and alt-righters, and then the responses to that from women like r/femaledatingstrategy that are just as toxic.
I've personally found Doctor Nerdlove to be effective at giving dating advice from this angle. While it's not the only advice he gives, he specializes in talking about how the incel/redpill...
I've personally found Doctor Nerdlove to be effective at giving dating advice from this angle. While it's not the only advice he gives, he specializes in talking about how the incel/redpill mindset sets you up to fail and giving the combination of a cold splash of reality and a sympathetic perspective from someone who's been there that guys who are getting sucked into that mindset need. It's not going to dissuade someone who's already alt-right, but it's good dating advice and absolutely might stop a young man from continuing on a path that leads there.
I actually think that the difference shown by the data is better explained by an education gap, rather than by preference for one political alignment over another. Statistically, those with a high...
I actually think that the difference shown by the data is better explained by an education gap, rather than by preference for one political alignment over another. Statistically, those with a high school degree or less seem to have had a fairly dramatic decline in terms of marriage prospects. This is a problem that I don't think any amount of guru advice would be able to solve.
It's interesting on that graph that for people that identify as conservative, there's the opposite sexual dimorphism; conservative men have moved slightly to the left, and conservative women have...
It's interesting on that graph that for people that identify as conservative, there's the opposite sexual dimorphism; conservative men have moved slightly to the left, and conservative women have moved waaay to the right.
For both conservative and liberal men, the net delta seems pretty small and in line with the typical ups and downs on the graph - but women in both camps have moved far to both respective ends of the political spectrum.
Where are you seeing that? I didn't see any data in that article that was tracking the extremeness of anyone's political views. Everyone who was "distinctly" liberal or conservative was lumped...
It's interesting on that graph that for people that identify as conservative, there's the opposite sexual dimorphism; conservative men have moved slightly to the left, and conservative women have moved waaay to the right.
Where are you seeing that? I didn't see any data in that article that was tracking the extremeness of anyone's political views. Everyone who was "distinctly" liberal or conservative was lumped together, and anyone whose political views were only "slight" or "moderate" were simply excluded.
I would chalk this up to political policy pushed by the respective camps. In the US you're basically on the left (women's rights, freedom to choose, equal pay, better healthcare, etc.) or on the...
I would chalk this up to political policy pushed by the respective camps. In the US you're basically on the left (women's rights, freedom to choose, equal pay, better healthcare, etc.) or on the right (anti-abortion, attacking DEI initiatives, against "feminist" policy, ending no-fault divorce, etc.) as those camps have dominated the political discourse in the two parties.
If political policy is going to be practiced all over the country and be massively involved in either attacking or expanding women's rights and issues while basically ignoring men, obviously the women are going to be more "impacted" as a group and the effect will be larger on their affiliation.
Fundamentally, I can’t wrap my head around contemporary (self-proclaimed) straight dudes embracing a culture of closing themselves off from meaningful emotional connections, limiting their...
Fundamentally, I can’t wrap my head around contemporary (self-proclaimed) straight dudes embracing a culture of closing themselves off from meaningful emotional connections, limiting their personal expression so as to not be perceived the “wrong way”, and then also boxing in a partner instead of helping them be the most they can be to enjoy life. Like, loosen up a bit?
If you subscribe to the theory (and I do) that a need/want for a preferred enforced hierarchy is basically the sole driving force of conservatives, it makes sense. Loosening up is an anathema to...
If you subscribe to the theory (and I do) that a need/want for a preferred enforced hierarchy is basically the sole driving force of conservatives, it makes sense.
Loosening up is an anathema to how their fundamental worldview works.
Agreed, with how far right conservatives have moved (and it doesn't matter if the voters claim to not share the radical beliefs if they're still voting for them) I don't see how it wouldn't become...
Agreed, with how far right conservatives have moved (and it doesn't matter if the voters claim to not share the radical beliefs if they're still voting for them) I don't see how it wouldn't become an important factor in choosing a life partner. Who wants to marry someone when the disagreements are about fundamental human rights instead of taxes.
One should not fall into the trap of equivocating between two sides just to not appear biased. The conservative views that young, single men hold and / or are being encouraged to hold are overtly...
One should not fall into the trap of equivocating between two sides just to not appear biased. The conservative views that young, single men hold and / or are being encouraged to hold are overtly dangerous to women and queer people and minorities - dub mentioned some. I don't know of many liberal or left views held by young, single women that pose a direct threat to their prospective dating partners...
This view feels fairly centrist when the politicians those on the right are voting for are happy to strip away women and minorities rights. There’s nothing comparable on the left that’s even close...
This view feels fairly centrist when the politicians those on the right are voting for are happy to strip away women and minorities rights. There’s nothing comparable on the left that’s even close to what they’re doing. They’re not equivalent.
Unfortunately, I have spoken to and ultimately cut off family members espousing the anti-vaxx, racist and homophobic views you'd normally ascribe to being online. So in my anecdotal experience,...
Unfortunately, I have spoken to and ultimately cut off family members espousing the anti-vaxx, racist and homophobic views you'd normally ascribe to being online. So in my anecdotal experience, it's fairly similar due to the positions of said party.
When the mainstream stance of the party itself is those things, it's not surprising that people who keep up with it or morally feel that way are attracted to those positions. It's hard to be on the fence or centrist when one party has gone fully extreme. Not much common ground is going to be found when I'm saying "gay marriage and women having the right to abortion/autonomy is fine" and I'm being told "No it isn't, those things shouldn't be happening."
This may feed into your point about those people "watching cable news 24/7" but I'm fairly sure this person didn't do that either. They already had those leanings to begin with and the party they supported solidified and made them more prominent. Whereas they may have been more quiet about those views before, they felt more emboldened to discuss them and bring it up which had the effect of making my wife and I push back more and ultimately limit/cease contact. It's not a politics issue, it's a morality and ideological one.
I've definitely been pushing back more myself as I see some of the bigotry become more mainstream in the discourse. When the politicians themselves are saying such things and moving to implement them, the power we have as individuals is to stand up for what we believe in (and vote accordingly).
(Edited for grammar and autocorrect mistakes as I was on mobile).
The major distinction to me is that while there are people pretty extreme in their beliefs on both sides of the spectrum, I don't see anybody with power on the left that are amplifying the crazy...
The major distinction to me is that while there are people pretty extreme in their beliefs on both sides of the spectrum, I don't see anybody with power on the left that are amplifying the crazy ideas of their base in nearly anyway comparable to the right, especially ideas that are directly threatening the vulnerable populations. Who's the left-wing equivalent of Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, George Santos, or Donald Trump? And on top of that, is "kill white men" or its variations a core belief of left wing political thought the same way that "abortion is murder" or "homosexuality is a sin" is for the right? I don't believe so.
So yeah, most conservative people aren't a direct threat, in that they probably aren't going to physically harm someone on the left. But the politicians they vote for to enact the policies they support are certainly a threat for many people.
That's totally fine and you're okay to feel how you want about that. But the difference isn't in "see profile with X view, then feel disinterested". On that front - yes, both conservative and...
That's unattractive to me even when I'm a liberal man myself. These kind of profiles were not uncommon.
That's totally fine and you're okay to feel how you want about that.
But the difference isn't in "see profile with X view, then feel disinterested". On that front - yes, both conservative and liberal singles might have the exact experience when swiping around. It's "what is this person going to say/do/vote for and how will I feel about that". The hypothetical liberal you're talking about would be, I suppose, annoying and would virtue signal too much. The hypothetical conservative would verbally and politically oppress minorities.
There's a Nietzsche parable (I think in Zarathustra maybe?) where he talks about a person who escapes from an insane asylum. He is resolved to never go back in there and looks around for ways he...
There's a Nietzsche parable (I think in Zarathustra maybe?) where he talks about a person who escapes from an insane asylum. He is resolved to never go back in there and looks around for ways he can prove he is sane. He settles on the statement that the world is round, because nobody could possibly dispute that fact. Nobody will suspect he is insane for saying it and, in fact, those who deny the truth of the statement are the insane ones! He will be safe!
So he goes around declaring to everyone that the world is round and insisting they must surely agree with this simple fact. He begins berating passers-by who fail to affirm his statement with sufficient enthusiasm. He begins disrupting people in conversation to assure them that the world is indeed round and he is a firm believer in that roundness.
That's the problem of basing your person on your politics. In that sense, I completely agree that's going a little far. Not one couple is going to agree on everything political. Just hashtagging...
That's the problem of basing your person on your politics.
In that sense, I completely agree that's going a little far.
Not one couple is going to agree on everything political. Just hashtagging the hell out of your profile with liberal/conservative catch phrases is absolutely a turn off.
I understand the one or two, that clearly stated your leanings. And I even understand the "No liberal/conservative" statement.
Sometimes, you just don't want to deal with those conversations, which often turn into arguments.
They're just not equivocal in any sense. Personally for me, I'm not sure I can imagine what would be "too liberal" for me, or even "too left", potentially, as I find most anyone that calls...
They're just not equivocal in any sense.
Personally for me, I'm not sure I can imagine what would be "too liberal" for me, or even "too left", potentially, as I find most anyone that calls themselves "liberal" in America not left-wing enough for me anyway.
The extremism / wild / conspiratorial views on the right have become the mainstream right. Anything that can be considered an "extreme" left has not become the mainstream left. The mainstream left is barely left at best.
Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to think of something that would be "too liberal" or "too left" for me that is mainstream anywhere in the world. I can't think of anything that isn't a belief held by...
Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to think of something that would be "too liberal" or "too left" for me that is mainstream anywhere in the world. I can't think of anything that isn't a belief held by maybe 2 people (which would immediately make it not mainstream, of course), and even then probably wouldn't be considered liberal or left. Like a fairly liberal coworker once said that any man that whistled was almost certainly a serial killer or had those tendencies. That's not left or right, that's just nuts.
I would not be fine dating a "conservative", period. Instant dealbreaker. Anything from lukewarm essentially-centrist liberal to extreme leftist would be a maybe depending on how closely our...
I would not be fine dating a "conservative", period. Instant dealbreaker.
Anything from lukewarm essentially-centrist liberal to extreme leftist would be a maybe depending on how closely our values align- I could find some percentage of compromise, sure, but that spectrum of acceptable partners only goes so far.
I would want to be with someone whose values match mine, and relatively closely, period, and a conservative and I will have next-to-0% values in common.
In your hypothetical- an entire relationship is boiled down to a vote? That's pretty ludicrous. I'm not dating people for political power. I would be dating to find someone I could love, enjoy their company, spend a bunch of time with, maybe a lifetime with, and that would never be anyone to the right of what you'd consider an "establishment liberal" in US politics, as I don't find it an acceptable or ethical political position at all, and if I'm going to have someone by my side, it will be someone that can fight for the same things I fight for, etc.
If you want me to stretch, then sure, maybe I wouldn't consider someone who is in the strains of leftism that promote authoritarian/state-run types of systems, but then again, maybe I would, because the rest of our values would align likely
Anyway, I think we're sort of talking past each other because you appear hung on your disdain for people that are outwardly clear about their stances on various issues / politics / etc in their profiles. You say elsewhere you want to date a "person" not just someone that appears to be completely wrapped up in politics- that's fine, that's your preference, and your bias/impression of who those people are. Hate to break it to you, they are indeed people too, just maybe not for you.
I don't even NEED the person I want to date to be overtly political in their outward expression of themselves- it's just, I do need to know how our values will align, and if there's any whiff of conservatism I'm wasting my damn time. If I find it out on the first date, then okay. But I prefer my time saved upfront by knowing what people are about.
For myself I don’t even consider those heavily political views and yet they are. I just fundamentally believe women should have bodily autonomy/access to abortion, that gay people (and minorities)...
For myself I don’t even consider those heavily political views and yet they are. I just fundamentally believe women should have bodily autonomy/access to abortion, that gay people (and minorities) have the right to be treated equally and have the same marriage rights as everyone else. If that’s such a huge turnoff to someone that they wouldn’t date me, I’d never want to be with them in the first place. I don’t understand what kind of relationship or partner you’d end up with where you’d strongly disagree on these things and somehow make it work. That doesn’t sound pleasant to me and people break up or seek out partners for way less important moral/personality things than those!
It’s not like this is something that comes up everyday, but in finding a partner (or future spouse) there are some things you can’t compromise on. I feel like a lot of what was mentioned is faulty logic and just treating a singular vote or politics as an entirely separate thing that exists by itself that can be ignored while dating.
I agree and I don't like dismissing those fundamental beliefs about rights as simply "politics". While they've unfortunately been made political, they are far more than that. For me they are core...
I agree and I don't like dismissing those fundamental beliefs about rights as simply "politics". While they've unfortunately been made political, they are far more than that. For me they are core values that aren't really up for discussion, and definitely not values I would ever want to differ on with a partner
I think your final sentence really gets at the heart of this
Core values are the critical things for the political arena though. What actually is politics besides collectively working out difficult questions about what we, as a polity, should do and how we...
Core values are the critical things for the political arena though. What actually is politics besides collectively working out difficult questions about what we, as a polity, should do and how we ought to live? The core values people disagree on are what's political. The other stuff, like where to set tax rates or how to allocate budgets, is more properly termed administration. It has a political dimension, and that dimension is the controversial element for whether those spending priorities accurately reflect our core values.
The notion that 'politics' is some kind of lifestyle branding that shouldn't affect important stuff is kind of troubling for me honestly, because it's sort of a "consumer products" model of engaging with the world.
I don't disagree but it is difficult to approach the topic clearly because of how the terms are often used, combined, or separated. I hate the phrase "stop being so political" being used to...
I don't disagree but it is difficult to approach the topic clearly because of how the terms are often used, combined, or separated. I hate the phrase "stop being so political" being used to dismiss conversation about core values as if them having a political component somehow makes them unimportant or something. People also use politics to refer to the surface level / tribalism / "game" of political machinations that happens on top of all the important core stuff underneath- more about the process than the values.
It's frustrating because it makes me sound like I disagree with you when I actually agree... I suppose not having everyone able to agree on definitions just makes these discussions 100x more difficult.
I also see things get called political sometimes as a way to assert that there are two equally valid viewpoints, when for me, for certain particular things, that is just not true.
There's a form of "stop being political" I sort of agree with. And that's the tendency of some people to be unable to interact with anyone or engage with anything except as a broad meta-commentary...
There's a form of "stop being political" I sort of agree with. And that's the tendency of some people to be unable to interact with anyone or engage with anything except as a broad meta-commentary on social dynamics or who is in office right now. That largely strikes me as a form of bypassing having genuine person-to-person conversations because it's easier to fall into a generic template where you just go through a checklist of beliefs.
But when people are like "Stick to writing about sports! Why are you talking about Kaepernick" then it's just like "Okay you just don't want to grapple with something that's hard to accept." And that's just cowardice dressed up as civic virtue.
I've seen this concept described as meta-politics, in this book. What we commonly refer to politics, are in fact driven by these meta-politics that shape our sense of self and perception of the...
What actually is politics besides collectively working out difficult questions about what we, as a polity, should do and how we ought to live? The core values people disagree on are what's political.
I've seen this concept described as meta-politics, in this book. What we commonly refer to politics, are in fact driven by these meta-politics that shape our sense of self and perception of the world.
(Just agreeing with you, but like @0x29A mentioned, there's room for a lot of confusion about what these terms mean both academically and in popular conversation.)
The answer from me would be no, because it’s a morality and ideological difference. There’s some things people cannot compromise on in a relationship, for many that’s religion and politics. Those...
The answer from me would be no, because it’s a morality and ideological difference. There’s some things people cannot compromise on in a relationship, for many that’s religion and politics. Those are things that greatly shape your worldviews, why would you want to marry and commit the rest of your life to someone (on either side) you vary that differently ideologically from? It makes no sense. It will ultimately lead to the breakdown of the relationship at some point. People are free to date and break up for any number of reasons, this is a fairly impactful one longterm.
I’m okay compromising on household chores, financial spending etc. not “please don’t vote for a party that will strip away people’s rights.” It’s not that complicated in my opinion. Same goes the other way, if my (now) wife didn’t want to date me because of my political opinions that’s her prerogative, especially if it’s important to her. These aren’t choices or views made in a vacuum here, they have relationship wide and outward implications. Your comment seems to be ignoring the the real world ramifications peoples politics have, of course that matters to potential partners.
Checking or not checking off that party at the ballot box doesn’t suddenly mean in everyday life you don’t share those views. I’m not quite sure what you mean by asking if a conservative let you check off their ballot. You usually choose to vote for a party that best represents your views, letting your partner control your vote doesn’t change your morality or what you are like.
To be a woman or identity as one is political in itself though, especially considering reproductive health care has become a wedge issue that the right worked actively against. Anti-abortion laws...
To be a woman or identity as one is political in itself though, especially considering reproductive health care has become a wedge issue that the right worked actively against. Anti-abortion laws are a product of the right that harms women because it interfere with their health-care and I fail to see something of equivalent from the left. When the very act of a relationship with a man can potentially affect their future health-care, it is certainly something that weighs as a larger burden on women. If a condom breaks, they're stealthed, assaulted, and more; the political leanings of the man they're with will certainly impact their future. There is the case of a Texas man suing his ex-wife and her friends who assisted her in obtaining an abortion. She was escaping an abusive relationship and was potentially being baby-trapped by her former husband. These types of fears are why women are so concerned about the political leanings of their potential partners and there isn't an equivalent danger for conservative men.
I'm a little saddened that nobody(?) who's replied to you has understood that you're trying to say something more like, "if you're unable to see a single bad thing about 'your' side, and unable to...
I'm a little saddened that nobody(?) who's replied to you has understood that you're trying to say something more like, "if you're unable to see a single bad thing about 'your' side, and unable to see a single good thing about the 'other' side, then consider the possibility that you have your own biases".
I think this is something that not enough people appreciate, and I'm happy to see you bring it up.
Mostly because that framing has been used so much in online discourse to drive the "both sides" narrative. I personally know 0 people on the left who don't have criticisms of various parts of the...
Mostly because that framing has been used so much in online discourse to drive the "both sides" narrative. I personally know 0 people on the left who don't have criticisms of various parts of the left, and I almost exclusively interact personally with people on the left (>90% probably).
But why bother looking for something I disagree with "the left" about when there's a 3-alarm fire going on where the right is passing laws stripping my wife of bodily autonomy and literally putting her life in danger?
I know I'm biased as hell, but being unbiased isn't a virtue in many facets of life. When evaluating something critical, yes, you should try to strip away your biases and let context, evidence, and facts guide you. But for things that affect you personally and deal heavily with your own personal feelings and morals? Bias is literally necessary to make a useful decision.
Dating/relationships/marriage? There are tons of fish in the sea who don't hold views wholly incompatible with what I consider basic human decency.
When people are asking others to be unbiased or critical of "both sides" to essentially ignore what people consider to be massive differences in fundamental values and perceptions of human rights, it sets off tons of warning bells for nearly anyone on the left who has participated with anyone online for the past decade.
I think it's worth considering where the "center" is here. Are young single women really going further left or are other groups/the debate in general going to the right?
I think it's worth considering where the "center" is here. Are young single women really going further left or are other groups/the debate in general going to the right?
This is what I am seeing too. 13 years ago it still felt pretty taboo to talk openly about socialism because you would get a lot of pushback and accusations of being a secret commie. Nowadays, a...
This is what I am seeing too. 13 years ago it still felt pretty taboo to talk openly about socialism because you would get a lot of pushback and accusations of being a secret commie. Nowadays, a lot more people are at least aware of the idea and don't outright disparage it.
These are small numbers to be basing a broad conclusion on though. Men growing in conservativeness from 10% identifying to 15% is an extremely tiny share of the population. That's less than the...
These are small numbers to be basing a broad conclusion on though. Men growing in conservativeness from 10% identifying to 15% is an extremely tiny share of the population. That's less than the percentage of people who are openly gay!
The surge in women identifying as liberal is more substantive, but also understandable as women's roles in society have become one of the primary socio-political shifts of the past decade and all of those shifts have been extremely political.
I’m just outside of the age demographic, but every day since my 20s I’ve gone further and further left. I wonder when the alt right pipeline really started getting aggressive targeting younger men?
I’m just outside of the age demographic, but every day since my 20s I’ve gone further and further left. I wonder when the alt right pipeline really started getting aggressive targeting younger men?
Honestly, I think around 2008. There was a lot of .... varying levels of veiled anger about Obama's election, and I think it stoked a lot of deeply-held fears among (especially, but not only)...
Honestly, I think around 2008. There was a lot of .... varying levels of veiled anger about Obama's election, and I think it stoked a lot of deeply-held fears among (especially, but not only) younger white men. Also, if you target internet forums and chatboards for niche interests, turns out your darts are going to mostly land on that demographic.
I am suspicious right off the bat..."marriage" is an abstract concept, how can something be good or bad news for it?
one of my ongoing pet peeves is outlets like the Atlantic publishing articles like this that present themselves as neutral thinkpieces, while laundering the political motivations of their authors.
Lyman Stone writes for the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies
Brad Wilcox is "Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies."
(he seems to be unrelated to the Brad Wilcox who is a professor at Brigham Young University)
the author bios, at the very bottom of the article, include some of those affiliations, but curiously leave off AEI:
the Institute for Family Studies, despite the generic-sounding name, seems like they push conservative "family values" ideas. from InfluenceWatch:
their funding comes from sources like the Bradley Foundation, which funds numerous conservative causes as well as being founded by (get your bingo board out) one of the original members of the John Birch Society.
anyway, back to the article. what's the first source they reference? a survey from AEI, the conservative think tank that both authors are affiliated with (and that affiliation is not disclosed in the article or their author blurbs):
they, as far as I can tell, are just presenting what they see as a problem, not proposing any solutions:
but knowing that both authors are "family values" conservatives, I think I can take a guess at what their solution would be, if they included it...liberal women should get over themselves and marry conservative men? because otherwise something something declining birthrates.
a liberal woman marrying a conservative man is, big shock, an inherently unequal exchange. the man might have to listen to his wife talk about Black Lives Matter or something...and meanwhile the woman might have a husband who doesn't believe she has the right to get an abortion for an unwanted or unviable pregnancy.
Why does it always seem like these enlightened centrist both-sideser types turn out to be conservatives in disguise? "Political division is destroying marriage!" -says the "neutral" but secretly family values religious conservative who votes for the people and policies causing the divide in the first place
I imagine because they know, deep down, that their ideas are unpopular and thus they can't afford to be upfront with them. Especially if you're younger, you're well aware that most people your age are more progressive than you. Unfortunately, instead of triggering a reaction of "well hmm, maybe that should encourage me to introspect about my ideas", it tends to lead to doubling down.
If you enter this conversation with the idea that "they" should be more introspective (i.e. because they're "wrong"), then it certainly sounds like you're not being very introspective about your ideas, either. Things like interracial marriage were seen as minority and deeply unsettling perspectives, once. Thank God we didn't let popularity get in the way of them.
What introspection do we need to do if we see conservatives treating women like objects they can own. Wanting to get rid of no fault divorce, not allowing them to make their own body decisions. I know why women put up with conservative men in the past, because they couldn't open their own bank account or get a job. Now we can do anything we want, including not being wife's or even friends with people that want to do us harm.
Unpopular != wrong. Not only is there no true right or wrong when it comes to these opinions (though I think most people could agree on a certain number of rights and wrongs), we're talking about dating, marriage, and relationships. That means what matters is how amenable other people are to your opinions.
That being said, I think anytime someone's opinions or actions are met with disagreement and/or hostility, the correct response is introspection. I just did it myself when you responded. It doesn't necessarily have to result in a changing of opinions, but it can.
To use your and my comments as an example, if I read your comment and decided no, you're wrong, and I'm going to dig this hole about 3 feet deeper, then that's my prerogative. But that means I shouldn't necessarily expect you to swipe right on me, or for us to have a fun night out sometime, or even have a big happy family.
Sounds like the answer here is liberal polygamy. (That’s a joke, to be clear!)
For those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/NxB0n
Not surprising on a number of levels.
First, the divide between the political left and right increasingly has less to do with policy and more to do with values. It's difficult for someone on the religious right to accept that behaviors they consider morally abhorrent are accepted and even celebrated on the left as expressions of personal freedom. Likewise, the moral policing of the right morphs into bigotry and discrimination from a leftist perspective. People aren't rejecting partners based on tax policy, they're encountering real gaps in shared values and beliefs.
For women in particular, modern society has finally evolved to a point where women are not dependent on marriage for survival. In the past, women couldn't vote, have a bank account, own property, or have reliable control over their own reproduction. Settling down with someone was a necessity of survival rather than a romantic choice. Women are now embracing their personal freedom of choice and are consequently more choosy about their partners, wanting them to connect on a deeper level and contribute more to the relationship/household than was expected in the past. When their partner doesn't live up to their standards, they are more likely to leave and seek a better partner than settle and tough it out. Women have generally embraced their freedoms and see the regressive policies of the right as a threat to their lifestyle, driving them further left. The mask has come off on the right, with events aimed at young conservative women boiling down to "give up your dreams and go back to the kitchen."
Young men seem to be struggling to adjust to this new dating reality, most notably demonstrated by the rise of the "incel" community. As women become more discriminating in their mate selection, those left behind become frustrated and some dig into the entitlement of previous generations rather than looking inward and working to improve the flaws that failed them in the dating arena. Right-wing influencers like Andrew Tate swoop in and further the divide by blaming the women and teaching misogyny rather than actual self-improvement, further radicalizing them and pushing their ideology further to the right even as their counterparts move left.
Just a brief note to mention that not all marriages are straight. Calling this "bad for marriage" is as absurd as calling Grindr "bad for sex." Some folks are looking for something else.
I do wonder if there's any decrease in what the article calls 'homogamy' at all, or if these increasingly left wing women are just dating other left wing women. LGBTQ identification has certainly trended up amongst the young'uns.
https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup
Over 20%? That's one in five. What a coinkydink.
I just figured it was good to mention the framing in response to the article title :)
Interesting read illustrated by data. With the growing divide, I do wonder how that affects openness to change views for individuals. The desire/drive for a relationship can be pretty strong for many. Are men more willing to consider or change views to find a partner or are women? Is there an opportunity for a left wing male relationship advice guru to sweep in and show young men they can change their views and land dates?
Completely anecdotal but I’ve been hearing more and more about men hiding their conservative views and even pretending to agree with it outspoken liberal women when they bring up women’s rights in early dates only to backtrack later after the relationship becomes serious or label themselves as feminists but they actually don’t support body autonomy or think insert sexist thing is actually sexist ect.
So it seems to me that these men are well aware that supporting the dismantling of women’s rights is unattractive to women but not enough to reflect on their views, just enough to make sure they don’t let the woman find out on a first date.
That would be unhealthy for everyone involved.
At best you'd get a bunch of fakers, and relationships between people who aren't compatible based on one of them hiding their actual opinions for years or decades until the relationship is established and eventually the guise fades away.
I think there's a difference between hiding ones' views and being deceitful and an opportunity to actually get people to assess their stated politics and change their views. I think part of the problem with many politics today is the lack of critically assessing personal views, and the lack of a relationship and/or possibility of creating one is one of those things that is capable of piercing that veil.
While I wish this was the case, there are many a story of women dealing with men being deceitful on their political leanings. TwoX and other women centric forums have had near constant streams of women being fed up with the dating scene due to terrible first dates or discovering months in that the men they are dating lean far-right. Unfortunately, the men who typically hold those political views are not going to have an introspective revelation when they're refused and will more likely lie in order to sleep with someone. When sex is the goal and a meaningful relationship is not, rethinking political affiliations is not going to be valued as the essiest route in comparison.
Problem is, telling people "if you don't be liberal people won't date you" is just about the worst way to encourage genuine change in people.
Yeah but you do you think that's going to be the message people get?
You can't tiptoe around the truth you're speaking and when the truth you're speaking is "hold this view if you won't get sex" that's what people are going to hear.
If you're going to convince people by telling them that they should respect bodily autonomy, they're going to be convinced by that argument by default. They might be convinced if they speak to women who hold that view and they are convinced by their experiences.
But that doesn't happen through some dating guru.
There are effective ways to communicate with people and ineffective ways. Stating something without any nuance or elaboration like that will certainly not get many bites, but framed and explained in the right way may make a portion of people search inward.
I think it would be extremely hard to convince a young man who's already gone down a particular rabbit hole of right wing dating advice to listen to someone from the other side, though. It's hard to imagine more reasonable advice having the raw appeal to a lonely young man that something like pick up artistry and the idea that you can have a woman that will do whatever you want and you'll get all the sex you ever wanted just by acting a certain way does. Like, if someone's already been sold on that fantasy, what does it take for them to give it up? And would they give it up for more moderate dating advice, or would they slide into incel communities like a lot of dudes have?
I'm definitely not the expert here, being female and married. But it does make me sad seeing so many dudes slide into this hole of misery, and making the women they date miserable too. I'm glad I got married young and that was luckily not a mistake, I'm not sure I'd make it in today's dating world of apps and the red pill and PUAs and alt-righters, and then the responses to that from women like r/femaledatingstrategy that are just as toxic.
I've personally found Doctor Nerdlove to be effective at giving dating advice from this angle. While it's not the only advice he gives, he specializes in talking about how the incel/redpill mindset sets you up to fail and giving the combination of a cold splash of reality and a sympathetic perspective from someone who's been there that guys who are getting sucked into that mindset need. It's not going to dissuade someone who's already alt-right, but it's good dating advice and absolutely might stop a young man from continuing on a path that leads there.
I actually think that the difference shown by the data is better explained by an education gap, rather than by preference for one political alignment over another. Statistically, those with a high school degree or less seem to have had a fairly dramatic decline in terms of marriage prospects. This is a problem that I don't think any amount of guru advice would be able to solve.
It's interesting on that graph that for people that identify as conservative, there's the opposite sexual dimorphism; conservative men have moved slightly to the left, and conservative women have moved waaay to the right.
For both conservative and liberal men, the net delta seems pretty small and in line with the typical ups and downs on the graph - but women in both camps have moved far to both respective ends of the political spectrum.
Where are you seeing that? I didn't see any data in that article that was tracking the extremeness of anyone's political views. Everyone who was "distinctly" liberal or conservative was lumped together, and anyone whose political views were only "slight" or "moderate" were simply excluded.
I would chalk this up to political policy pushed by the respective camps. In the US you're basically on the left (women's rights, freedom to choose, equal pay, better healthcare, etc.) or on the right (anti-abortion, attacking DEI initiatives, against "feminist" policy, ending no-fault divorce, etc.) as those camps have dominated the political discourse in the two parties.
If political policy is going to be practiced all over the country and be massively involved in either attacking or expanding women's rights and issues while basically ignoring men, obviously the women are going to be more "impacted" as a group and the effect will be larger on their affiliation.
Fundamentally, I can’t wrap my head around contemporary (self-proclaimed) straight dudes embracing a culture of closing themselves off from meaningful emotional connections, limiting their personal expression so as to not be perceived the “wrong way”, and then also boxing in a partner instead of helping them be the most they can be to enjoy life. Like, loosen up a bit?
If you subscribe to the theory (and I do) that a need/want for a preferred enforced hierarchy is basically the sole driving force of conservatives, it makes sense.
Loosening up is an anathema to how their fundamental worldview works.
Agreed, with how far right conservatives have moved (and it doesn't matter if the voters claim to not share the radical beliefs if they're still voting for them) I don't see how it wouldn't become an important factor in choosing a life partner. Who wants to marry someone when the disagreements are about fundamental human rights instead of taxes.
One should not fall into the trap of equivocating between two sides just to not appear biased. The conservative views that young, single men hold and / or are being encouraged to hold are overtly dangerous to women and queer people and minorities - dub mentioned some. I don't know of many liberal or left views held by young, single women that pose a direct threat to their prospective dating partners...
This view feels fairly centrist when the politicians those on the right are voting for are happy to strip away women and minorities rights. There’s nothing comparable on the left that’s even close to what they’re doing. They’re not equivalent.
Unfortunately, I have spoken to and ultimately cut off family members espousing the anti-vaxx, racist and homophobic views you'd normally ascribe to being online. So in my anecdotal experience, it's fairly similar due to the positions of said party.
When the mainstream stance of the party itself is those things, it's not surprising that people who keep up with it or morally feel that way are attracted to those positions. It's hard to be on the fence or centrist when one party has gone fully extreme. Not much common ground is going to be found when I'm saying "gay marriage and women having the right to abortion/autonomy is fine" and I'm being told "No it isn't, those things shouldn't be happening."
This may feed into your point about those people "watching cable news 24/7" but I'm fairly sure this person didn't do that either. They already had those leanings to begin with and the party they supported solidified and made them more prominent. Whereas they may have been more quiet about those views before, they felt more emboldened to discuss them and bring it up which had the effect of making my wife and I push back more and ultimately limit/cease contact. It's not a politics issue, it's a morality and ideological one.
I've definitely been pushing back more myself as I see some of the bigotry become more mainstream in the discourse. When the politicians themselves are saying such things and moving to implement them, the power we have as individuals is to stand up for what we believe in (and vote accordingly).
(Edited for grammar and autocorrect mistakes as I was on mobile).
The major distinction to me is that while there are people pretty extreme in their beliefs on both sides of the spectrum, I don't see anybody with power on the left that are amplifying the crazy ideas of their base in nearly anyway comparable to the right, especially ideas that are directly threatening the vulnerable populations. Who's the left-wing equivalent of Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, George Santos, or Donald Trump? And on top of that, is "kill white men" or its variations a core belief of left wing political thought the same way that "abortion is murder" or "homosexuality is a sin" is for the right? I don't believe so.
So yeah, most conservative people aren't a direct threat, in that they probably aren't going to physically harm someone on the left. But the politicians they vote for to enact the policies they support are certainly a threat for many people.
That's totally fine and you're okay to feel how you want about that.
But the difference isn't in "see profile with X view, then feel disinterested". On that front - yes, both conservative and liberal singles might have the exact experience when swiping around. It's "what is this person going to say/do/vote for and how will I feel about that". The hypothetical liberal you're talking about would be, I suppose, annoying and would virtue signal too much. The hypothetical conservative would verbally and politically oppress minorities.
There's a Nietzsche parable (I think in Zarathustra maybe?) where he talks about a person who escapes from an insane asylum. He is resolved to never go back in there and looks around for ways he can prove he is sane. He settles on the statement that the world is round, because nobody could possibly dispute that fact. Nobody will suspect he is insane for saying it and, in fact, those who deny the truth of the statement are the insane ones! He will be safe!
So he goes around declaring to everyone that the world is round and insisting they must surely agree with this simple fact. He begins berating passers-by who fail to affirm his statement with sufficient enthusiasm. He begins disrupting people in conversation to assure them that the world is indeed round and he is a firm believer in that roundness.
He is promptly shipped back to the asylum.
That's the problem of basing your person on your politics.
In that sense, I completely agree that's going a little far.
Not one couple is going to agree on everything political. Just hashtagging the hell out of your profile with liberal/conservative catch phrases is absolutely a turn off.
I understand the one or two, that clearly stated your leanings. And I even understand the "No liberal/conservative" statement.
Sometimes, you just don't want to deal with those conversations, which often turn into arguments.
They're just not equivocal in any sense.
Personally for me, I'm not sure I can imagine what would be "too liberal" for me, or even "too left", potentially, as I find most anyone that calls themselves "liberal" in America not left-wing enough for me anyway.
The extremism / wild / conspiratorial views on the right have become the mainstream right. Anything that can be considered an "extreme" left has not become the mainstream left. The mainstream left is barely left at best.
Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to think of something that would be "too liberal" or "too left" for me that is mainstream anywhere in the world. I can't think of anything that isn't a belief held by maybe 2 people (which would immediately make it not mainstream, of course), and even then probably wouldn't be considered liberal or left. Like a fairly liberal coworker once said that any man that whistled was almost certainly a serial killer or had those tendencies. That's not left or right, that's just nuts.
Liberalism is a right wing ideology
I would not be fine dating a "conservative", period. Instant dealbreaker.
Anything from lukewarm essentially-centrist liberal to extreme leftist would be a maybe depending on how closely our values align- I could find some percentage of compromise, sure, but that spectrum of acceptable partners only goes so far.
I would want to be with someone whose values match mine, and relatively closely, period, and a conservative and I will have next-to-0% values in common.
In your hypothetical- an entire relationship is boiled down to a vote? That's pretty ludicrous. I'm not dating people for political power. I would be dating to find someone I could love, enjoy their company, spend a bunch of time with, maybe a lifetime with, and that would never be anyone to the right of what you'd consider an "establishment liberal" in US politics, as I don't find it an acceptable or ethical political position at all, and if I'm going to have someone by my side, it will be someone that can fight for the same things I fight for, etc.
If you want me to stretch, then sure, maybe I wouldn't consider someone who is in the strains of leftism that promote authoritarian/state-run types of systems, but then again, maybe I would, because the rest of our values would align likely
Anyway, I think we're sort of talking past each other because you appear hung on your disdain for people that are outwardly clear about their stances on various issues / politics / etc in their profiles. You say elsewhere you want to date a "person" not just someone that appears to be completely wrapped up in politics- that's fine, that's your preference, and your bias/impression of who those people are. Hate to break it to you, they are indeed people too, just maybe not for you.
I don't even NEED the person I want to date to be overtly political in their outward expression of themselves- it's just, I do need to know how our values will align, and if there's any whiff of conservatism I'm wasting my damn time. If I find it out on the first date, then okay. But I prefer my time saved upfront by knowing what people are about.
For myself I don’t even consider those heavily political views and yet they are. I just fundamentally believe women should have bodily autonomy/access to abortion, that gay people (and minorities) have the right to be treated equally and have the same marriage rights as everyone else. If that’s such a huge turnoff to someone that they wouldn’t date me, I’d never want to be with them in the first place. I don’t understand what kind of relationship or partner you’d end up with where you’d strongly disagree on these things and somehow make it work. That doesn’t sound pleasant to me and people break up or seek out partners for way less important moral/personality things than those!
It’s not like this is something that comes up everyday, but in finding a partner (or future spouse) there are some things you can’t compromise on. I feel like a lot of what was mentioned is faulty logic and just treating a singular vote or politics as an entirely separate thing that exists by itself that can be ignored while dating.
I agree and I don't like dismissing those fundamental beliefs about rights as simply "politics". While they've unfortunately been made political, they are far more than that. For me they are core values that aren't really up for discussion, and definitely not values I would ever want to differ on with a partner
I think your final sentence really gets at the heart of this
Core values are the critical things for the political arena though. What actually is politics besides collectively working out difficult questions about what we, as a polity, should do and how we ought to live? The core values people disagree on are what's political. The other stuff, like where to set tax rates or how to allocate budgets, is more properly termed administration. It has a political dimension, and that dimension is the controversial element for whether those spending priorities accurately reflect our core values.
The notion that 'politics' is some kind of lifestyle branding that shouldn't affect important stuff is kind of troubling for me honestly, because it's sort of a "consumer products" model of engaging with the world.
I don't disagree but it is difficult to approach the topic clearly because of how the terms are often used, combined, or separated. I hate the phrase "stop being so political" being used to dismiss conversation about core values as if them having a political component somehow makes them unimportant or something. People also use politics to refer to the surface level / tribalism / "game" of political machinations that happens on top of all the important core stuff underneath- more about the process than the values.
It's frustrating because it makes me sound like I disagree with you when I actually agree... I suppose not having everyone able to agree on definitions just makes these discussions 100x more difficult.
I also see things get called political sometimes as a way to assert that there are two equally valid viewpoints, when for me, for certain particular things, that is just not true.
There's a form of "stop being political" I sort of agree with. And that's the tendency of some people to be unable to interact with anyone or engage with anything except as a broad meta-commentary on social dynamics or who is in office right now. That largely strikes me as a form of bypassing having genuine person-to-person conversations because it's easier to fall into a generic template where you just go through a checklist of beliefs.
But when people are like "Stick to writing about sports! Why are you talking about Kaepernick" then it's just like "Okay you just don't want to grapple with something that's hard to accept." And that's just cowardice dressed up as civic virtue.
I've seen this concept described as meta-politics, in this book. What we commonly refer to politics, are in fact driven by these meta-politics that shape our sense of self and perception of the world.
(Just agreeing with you, but like @0x29A mentioned, there's room for a lot of confusion about what these terms mean both academically and in popular conversation.)
The answer from me would be no, because it’s a morality and ideological difference. There’s some things people cannot compromise on in a relationship, for many that’s religion and politics. Those are things that greatly shape your worldviews, why would you want to marry and commit the rest of your life to someone (on either side) you vary that differently ideologically from? It makes no sense. It will ultimately lead to the breakdown of the relationship at some point. People are free to date and break up for any number of reasons, this is a fairly impactful one longterm.
I’m okay compromising on household chores, financial spending etc. not “please don’t vote for a party that will strip away people’s rights.” It’s not that complicated in my opinion. Same goes the other way, if my (now) wife didn’t want to date me because of my political opinions that’s her prerogative, especially if it’s important to her. These aren’t choices or views made in a vacuum here, they have relationship wide and outward implications. Your comment seems to be ignoring the the real world ramifications peoples politics have, of course that matters to potential partners.
Checking or not checking off that party at the ballot box doesn’t suddenly mean in everyday life you don’t share those views. I’m not quite sure what you mean by asking if a conservative let you check off their ballot. You usually choose to vote for a party that best represents your views, letting your partner control your vote doesn’t change your morality or what you are like.
To be a woman or identity as one is political in itself though, especially considering reproductive health care has become a wedge issue that the right worked actively against. Anti-abortion laws are a product of the right that harms women because it interfere with their health-care and I fail to see something of equivalent from the left. When the very act of a relationship with a man can potentially affect their future health-care, it is certainly something that weighs as a larger burden on women. If a condom breaks, they're stealthed, assaulted, and more; the political leanings of the man they're with will certainly impact their future. There is the case of a Texas man suing his ex-wife and her friends who assisted her in obtaining an abortion. She was escaping an abusive relationship and was potentially being baby-trapped by her former husband. These types of fears are why women are so concerned about the political leanings of their potential partners and there isn't an equivalent danger for conservative men.
Yeah, if a potential partner isn't willing to fight for women's rights (alongside myself) I'm not interested. I'm running in the other direction.
I'm a little saddened that nobody(?) who's replied to you has understood that you're trying to say something more like, "if you're unable to see a single bad thing about 'your' side, and unable to see a single good thing about the 'other' side, then consider the possibility that you have your own biases".
I think this is something that not enough people appreciate, and I'm happy to see you bring it up.
Mostly because that framing has been used so much in online discourse to drive the "both sides" narrative. I personally know 0 people on the left who don't have criticisms of various parts of the left, and I almost exclusively interact personally with people on the left (>90% probably).
But why bother looking for something I disagree with "the left" about when there's a 3-alarm fire going on where the right is passing laws stripping my wife of bodily autonomy and literally putting her life in danger?
I know I'm biased as hell, but being unbiased isn't a virtue in many facets of life. When evaluating something critical, yes, you should try to strip away your biases and let context, evidence, and facts guide you. But for things that affect you personally and deal heavily with your own personal feelings and morals? Bias is literally necessary to make a useful decision.
Dating/relationships/marriage? There are tons of fish in the sea who don't hold views wholly incompatible with what I consider basic human decency.
When people are asking others to be unbiased or critical of "both sides" to essentially ignore what people consider to be massive differences in fundamental values and perceptions of human rights, it sets off tons of warning bells for nearly anyone on the left who has participated with anyone online for the past decade.
My thoughts as well, what is the metric of what is conservative or far-right or far-left?
I think it's worth considering where the "center" is here. Are young single women really going further left or are other groups/the debate in general going to the right?
This is what I am seeing too. 13 years ago it still felt pretty taboo to talk openly about socialism because you would get a lot of pushback and accusations of being a secret commie. Nowadays, a lot more people are at least aware of the idea and don't outright disparage it.
These are small numbers to be basing a broad conclusion on though. Men growing in conservativeness from 10% identifying to 15% is an extremely tiny share of the population. That's less than the percentage of people who are openly gay!
The surge in women identifying as liberal is more substantive, but also understandable as women's roles in society have become one of the primary socio-political shifts of the past decade and all of those shifts have been extremely political.
I’m just outside of the age demographic, but every day since my 20s I’ve gone further and further left. I wonder when the alt right pipeline really started getting aggressive targeting younger men?
Honestly, I think around 2008. There was a lot of .... varying levels of veiled anger about Obama's election, and I think it stoked a lot of deeply-held fears among (especially, but not only) younger white men. Also, if you target internet forums and chatboards for niche interests, turns out your darts are going to mostly land on that demographic.