this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
29 points (91.4% liked)
Pleasant Politics
241 readers
1 users here now
Politics without the jerks.
This community is watched over by a ruthless robot moderator to keep out bad actors. I don't know if it will work. Read [email protected] for a full explanation. The short version is don't be a net negative to the community and you can post here.
Rules
Post political news, your own opinions, or discussion. Anything goes.
All posts must follow the slrpnk sitewide rules.
No personal attacks, no bigotry, no spam. Those will get a manual temporary ban.
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article doesn't provide hard numbers to nail down on a wall and quote. However, I'll do my best to summarize and interpret.
/.../
My interpretation:
Typically, those processes have different outputs:
To have the output of B enter the political realm, one needs a politician to translate bitterness into reactionary politics that aims to harm women's rights. To bring a boring example: an ultra-conservative opposed to the right of aborting a pregnancy.
Once the translation has been provided, the next question comes: are young men easier to co-opt into radical political movements? And the answer is undeniably "yes". Men are considerably less inhibited by risk, for reasons that are probably both social (how one is raised) and biological.
If a radical movement presents the perspective of considerable risk, but considerable gain, you'll typically find young men involved. So, some political offshoots of a situation where the state of affairs makes people discontent - both offshoots in revolutionary and reactionary directions (think of anarchists and neofascists) - you'll find young men heavily involved there (and often quite willing to beat the heck out of each other).