I teach in schools and I have never seen young men as radicalised by the far right as they are now. I have never been so often warned by teachers about students before taking their classes. There is a level of rage there that is startling.
Polls in the US have shown gradual drifting of young voters to the right, and much of the left/liberal reaction has been ‘these polls are wrong, because young people are hard to poll’, and maybe they’re right, but there is no shortage of evidence for the trend elsewhere.
Why is this so gendered?
It is reflected in most far right protests too, where men FAR outnumber women.
Isn’t it time we stopped looking just at race/poverty/religion as drivers of far-right terrorism in the Western world, and address the uncomfortable fact that maleness drives it too?
Then ask why?
Y’all keep looking for the magic identity that causes this, but it’s not merry one aspect of identity. It’s rightwing ideology, and specifically “fiscal conservatism” that’s the core problem, but that’s probably part of you own ideology, so you’ll say that it’s “males” or whatever.
That’s not what the research reveals. Misogyny goes hand in hand far-right extremism. It is a core value
You cannot ignore the huge gender disparity within far right groups
Nor the huge importance the far right of the Republican Party is placing on delivering laws that harm women….👇🏻
Anti abortion, anti sex education, anti contraception, monitoring periods in athletes and so on and so on
None of that is explained by “fiscal conservatism”. Just because a truth is unpalatable to you doesn’t negate its validity
The need to dominate, control and use women really is a thing!
You have causality backwards. It’s not “maleness” that causes rightwing ideology, but rightwing ideology that generalizes and spreads, causing all those other political effects. Yes, it’s “fiscal conservatism” that is a root of it.
Does “maleness” always imply “rightwing ideology?” No, it doesn’t.
Does “rightwing ideology” always imply “male supremacy” and “toxic masculinity?” Yes, yes it does.
The causality goes in one direction, and yours was backwards.
“Fiscal conservatism” is rightwing ideology implemented fiscally. That’s what it is. People think it’s just about “balanced budgets” but that’s not at all what it’s really about. If rightwing ideology has a position, “fiscal conservatism” has a policy for it.
The problem with admitting this truth is that “fiscal conservatism” is part of the political platform of the Democratic Party, or at least its largest factions. It’s part of the “Centrist” and “Moderate” branding, and the neoliberal consensus.
So to admit it means to be “radical” and “disloyal.”
Neoliberalism is a shitty ideology; leads to the sort of horrible inequalities, child poverty & obscene wealth that characterise the UK. & USA.
It maintains the oppression of women, black people etc.
But it’s not far right terrorism, which is what’s under discussion in this 🧵
Neoliberalism is an ideology that drives supremacy. It’s a modified version of supremacy, but it’s a supremacy just as white supremacy or patriarchy is. And if you tolerate or promote supremacy in one form, it spreads all forms.
Neoliberalism literally spreads supremacy ideology. The vehicle for that is its “fiscal conservatism” which explicitly endorses the idea of supremacy as legitimate, but also implements policy like the Military and Prison Industrial Complexes, systemic forms of white supremacy and patriarchy.
I don’t disagree. But it is not an explanation of the marked gender gap on the violent end of the spectrum. White supremacist marches tend to be mostly (white obvs) men.
You both seem to be talking past each other & in circles. There’s little beyond the self-interest of those with power; it’s a positive feedback loop between two culture elements that have been unified in the minds of right wing people (and therefore in the minds of their opposition): men & authority
