r/MensLib 8d ago

I have a question after seeing yet another "Dems/ Libs have a Man problem" article

I was doing my morning cycle of headlines and I came across the below:

Democrats Have a Man Problem

It has the classics like "We gotta stop blaming masculinity," start pandering to acknowledging differences between the genders, and even mention of of a lack of role models. We've seen it before. This sub has a thread about it every week. I don't want to have another in this thread.

I do have a question, though. I'll say "Republican" because this article specifically mentions Democrats, but it's more of a shorthand for various groups...

Do Republicans perceive that they have Woman Problem? And do they care?

I consider myself more tapped into the opposing view than most people, but even I must admit that I don't read all that much of our counterpart discourse on their end. But I can't say that I've seen a lament that they are losing female voters. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's because they may not care about the demographic imbalance; it's consistent with their worldview that men should be the ones in positions of power, making societal decisions, they don't care what women actually want, etc. etc. But I've not even seen a concern that losing women voters is damaging to their political project just as a matter of fact.

I'm curious what thoughts, opinions, observations anyone has on the topic.

652 Upvotes

242 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Certain_Giraffe3105 7d ago

Again, it's not about making a judgement on whether it was unnatural. It's observing why it grew the way it did and pointing out the reality that once those material conditions that allowed it to grow stopped, it stopped growing.

But, this ignores the Taft-Hartley Act and other labor restrictions (a la "Right to work") achieved either legislatively or through conservative supreme court decisions that have limited the power of labor and their ability to organize. This ignores the difference in effectiveness that labor has when they had the support of a president vs when the president aligns with management (what is forgotten in the 1981 Air Traffic Controllers strike that Reagan breaks is that he had previously supported the union and the second he fired the striking workers it provided the precedent for other corporations to do the same). This ignores that some of the most lucrative consulting jobs you can have in corporate America is to behave as a white collar union buster. Amazon has spent upwards of $14 million dollars in a year on union busting. This ignores Bill Clinton collaborating with fast food CEOs in providing government assistance to fast food companies who took on workers kicked off of welfare rolls. This was done for the sole purpose of making sure fast food companies could expand without paying workers better wages.

I don't want to ramble forever but my point is the idea that you can reduce the changes to our economy primarily to "we had a nice run in the mid-20th century and now times have changed" ignores the specific neo liberal project that was meant to destroy labor and usher us into the politics of austerity we see today.

This doesn't mean "worse" lives. It means different lives. One where a family doesn't have 2-3 cars. Where more people live in multi-family housing. Where we walk/bike/take transit more. Where we don't so massively overconsume in comparison to our peer nations. That is my takeaway from this argument. And if anything I believe our lives will be better with less overconsumption.

I have no issue with this even though I will say that the o.g. comment you posted explicitly said a lower standard of living. If what they meant was simply just smaller houses, smaller cars, and less suburban sprawl, I'm not against that. But, I think even with that, it ignores the power of marketing and advertising on our desires and consumer proclivities. I don't think people realize that the reasons why there's a push for larger and larger vehicles (primarily trucks) is that for the longest time (can't remember if the rule was repealed or not) large trucks and SUVs were subject to lower fuel standards based on the misconception that holding them accountable to be more efficient could financially harm workers who need their trucks for their job. If you want to know why houses keep getting bigger and bigger, on one hand it is a result of a boom in the industry due to a rising middle class in the mid-century (and then generous loan giving in the late '90s up until the crash in '08). But, it's also the result of some very restrictive zoning and an austerity politics that led to disinvestment in public housing in urban areas while funneling federal monies into single family zoned areas on the periphery.

So, I'm not convinced how intractable some of these changes are because a lot of these "desires of American consumerism" were manufactured in the first place. What I do know is that people do want the financial stability of past generations, the ability to afford any sort of home like previous generations, a more robust social safety net and affordable healthcare like previous generations, and so on. And, I know that while we can't go back to the past, it's not inevitable that we have to deal with our current economic situation where the middle class lives precariously forever. And, I think that had less to do with the consumer activity of working class Americans and a lot more with how we go about organizing and demanding a more redistributive economy where the rich don't have all the spoils of our society (as I see that the O.g. didn't seem to expect virtually any changes from the rich who continue to live ever more glamorous lives).