Left vs right, masculine vs feminine - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15309014
The reality is that we need both a left and a right in politics. And why families need both a masculine and feminine figure (e.g. mother and father). Even gay couples typically have a partner who is more masculine and the other partner who leans more feminine. It's nature's way. And the reason is because the left is more feminized like a mother figure, they are more kind and compassionate and giving because sometimes when people are genuinely hurting they need that, and the right-wing is more masculine like a father figure. They deal more in tough love and teach personal responsibility and facing one's fears, and they're also the ones who are more assertive/aggressive and can often better protect the family from outside threats.

So the government is like a parent in many ways. We're forced to abide by their rules and they protect us from outside threats (military, police etc) like a father would, but they also can take care of us when we're vulnerable and/or hurting (unemployment insurance, welfare, healthcare, pensions etc) like a mother would. Too much or not enough of one or the other is harmful.

The far-left/communists are compassionate and well-meaning, but are like an overbearing mother who shelters their children, and the fascists and far-right are tough but far too much so, like an abusive father that lacks compassion. You need a balanced approach, and the left and right balance each other out and act as a check on each other so each isn't able to go to far.

*Note: Like in many families, sometimes the female behaves more "masculine" and provides the discipline and tough love, while the male is the kinder/gentler figure. So left-wing fellas don't worry, i'm not calling you women :lol:
#15309200
Unthinking Majority wrote:...the left is more feminized like a mother figure, they are more kind and compassionate and giving because sometimes when people are genuinely hurting they need that...


Image

Joe Stalin: "Mommy loves you!"
#15309473
Agent Steel wrote:In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all of humanity, which would include both the left and the right.

I don't really see either side as particularly masculine.


No one is more manly than me.
#15309498
For me Republicanism is masculine and monarchism is feminine, unless you are in the direct line of succession
#15309650
Well , this notion , that the left is feminine , and the right masculine , is reinforced by this gender test I have taken online . As I believe I have mentioned before , I didn't really care for it , apart for perhaps the wry comedic amusement of it . And , in addition , a number of the other questions seem to run parallel to questionnaires used to diagnose such developmental disorders as autism , not merely gender identity issues . However , if anyone wants to see just how over all masculine or feminine you are , compared to say @Rancid , who claims to be most masculine , his political views not withstanding , I shall include a link . The parts referring to politics , does skew the result I think . If not for that , my result might have been more in the white of androgyny , rather than the pale pink of femininity . And perhaps if it weren't for my dyscalculia , and autism , I might have even been more so in the pale blue of masculinity . But , as it is , the SAGE Test has me as being ever so slightly feminine , on average , so what do you do ?
https://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/sage/

Image
#15309667
I don't think there is any coherent philosophical difference between 'left' and 'right'.

The average person simply decides first whether they are left or right, largely based on their family and peers, and after that they decide what they are supposed to believe given this artificial identity, which they are informed of by talking head pundits and teachers/preachers/etc.

The vast majority of humans care more about being on a team than they are believing anything correct...because being on a team is simply more important for survival than being correct is.

So the 'left' and the 'right' basically occupy 2 distinct media echo chambers. It basically means you consume different media product. It is about as significant as whether you prefer star wars or Stat trek.

The ruling elite desperately want thr population that identifies as left or right to be as close as possible to 50/50...because that maintains the illusion of agency among the common people. They believe they have control over their lives so they won't seek effective ways to acquire power and they won't blame any ruling elite for the problems in the country...that blame will instead be deflected on the other 50% of the population that is 'brainwashed' to vote incorrectly. (In reality, everyone on both 'sides' are brainwashed and voting doesn't change anything).

What the ruling elite like to do is divide their preferences between the two 'sides'...for example the right wing supports the foreign policy and economic regulations the elite want while the left wing supports domestic and cultural issues the elite want. Then there is an illusion of 'compromise' where it appears both sides get some of what they want...but the 'right wingers' are never going to get the social issues they want (like banning the transfender cult or critical race theory) and the left wing is never going to get economic issues they want (like universal health care).
#15309680
FiveofSwords wrote:I don't think there is any coherent philosophical difference between 'left' and 'right'.

Maybe there isn't,but there's some kind of very powerful psychological predilections that cause modern societies to constantly reorganise into a left right spectrum. It may seem stupid or irrational to reduce the immense complexities of political choices to a 1 dimensional spectrum,but that's what we humans seem to do, time, after time. This pattern of the 1 dimensional spectrum is strongest amongst national politicians and weakens as we move out through local politicians, political activists, the politically engaged, non engaged voters to non voters.

So if we take the average voter, they will not tend to fit brilliantly into the political spectrum. They may support one party but have a view on a major issue that is dissonant from their party. But amongst the politically active its different matter. Many people will I say I;m not left or right, I'm libertarian. but don't just accept that.Most of the time if their libertarian priority is cutting taxes then they're basically a Republican, while if their libertarian priority is legalising cannabis then they're basically a Democrat.
#15309681
Rancid wrote:No one is more manly than me.


We know there is no more manly man than you Rancid.

And there is no more truly feminine female than I am.

That is why a marriage between Hakim Egyptian Arabic speaking dude and Olga Tañon Puerto Rican singer singing Dominican Republic Merengue tunes, and she meets the Arab speaking music world and results in this:



Lol.
#15309701
Rich wrote:Maybe there isn't,but there's some kind of very powerful psychological predilections that cause modern societies to constantly reorganise into a left right spectrum. It may seem stupid or irrational to reduce the immense complexities of political choices to a 1 dimensional spectrum,but that's what we humans seem to do, time, after time. This pattern of the 1 dimensional spectrum is strongest amongst national politicians and weakens as we move out through local politicians, political activists, the politically engaged, non engaged voters to non voters.

So if we take the average voter, they will not tend to fit brilliantly into the political spectrum. They may support one party but have a view on a major issue that is dissonant from their party. But amongst the politically active its different matter. Many people will I say I;m not left or right, I'm libertarian. but don't just accept that.Most of the time if their libertarian priority is cutting taxes then they're basically a Republican, while if their libertarian priority is legalising cannabis then they're basically a Democrat.


On the contrary, I do not think it hasever happened. Never. Not once in history. Have any counter example?

Politics has always just been a struggle between different people. Nations. One nation loses and the other wins. Sometimes religion or ideology was used as a euphemism for a nation...but the real conflict was between nations and revealed preferences always prove it.
#15309705
Agent Steel wrote:In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all of humanity, which would include both the left and the right.

I don't really see either side as particularly masculine.

Is that why western societies have slid further to the left over the last century? People, including men, have been getting softer?
#15309748
Fasces wrote:Humanity is self domesticating....

Humanity became "self-domesticating" right after it became "animal husbandry practicing."

So our future is probably the same as dogs and cows. Extinction because of loss of instincts.

What did Darwin say about domestication-versus-natural selection? Did he say that domestication of ourselves would... lead to survival fitness? Or did he say it wouldn't lead there at all?
#15309875
You all really don't get it do you?

The world dog population is 900 million and growing. Most of these dogs contribute squat zero to our economy, at least as producers. People whine on about welfare queens, while completely ignoring all the dogs lying around in plain sight. Look at the vast, vast, vast increase in cereal production that's taken place over the last ten thousand years. The historical consensus is that this was necessary in order for the development of civilisation. Well i guess that's one way of looking at it. The obvious way for me is that civilisation exists to support cereal reproduction, for cereal plants that are too lazy to actually compete out in the wilds of nature. We see this pattern with a whole range of plants and animals that are too lazy and cowardly to be out in nature standing on their own two / four feet.

Donald Trump complains that Europe's not paying its way when it comes to defence, Jesus try taking a look at all the farm animals, the chickens have got to be the biggest free loaders. And then there's all the pesticide production for plants that can't be bothered to invest in their own defence against insects and rely on Daddy farmer.

Some say George Harrison produced some great music, but he wanted to be remembered as a gardener He want to be remembered as a flowering plant slave.. Flowering plants have been manipulating dumb animals for the last 130 million years, in humans they seem to have found their biggest suckers yet. The George Harrison's the Elton John's all these supposed rich and successful creative geniuses, all seem to succumb to gardening addiction in the end.
#15309962
Saeko wrote:I can't even begin to comprehend the level of miseducation that is required to believe this nonsense.


Just for the laugh out loud value , I would be curious as to how feminine compared to masculine you are , and how it might correspond to your professed political alignment . https://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/sage/ :D Though , as others have pointed out here in the thread , authoritarianism transcends the left to right political spectrum binary . An abusive tyrant could conceivably be positioned on the left , although supposedly that should make the regime a mommy dearest nanny state , where as conversely there could be a laissez faire classical liberal absentee father limited government . So in other words , leftists could be mean-spirited shrews , while rightists could be weak willed wimps . In any case , no matter how many counter examples of powerful politicians on the left being heavy handed disciplinarians , or of right-libertarians being easygoing , and carefree , @Unthinking Majority will just simply assert that the leftist , whether or not the person is male or female biologically , is being an abusive mother , ideologically . As if ideologies can even possess genders in the first place . And , if for the sake of argument he were valid in his contention , are Communist men therefore not real men , but rather transwomen ? And are fascist women actually transmen? And wouldn't this be nothing more than the no true Scotsman logical fallacy ?

@FiveofSwords Money, a poor man's wages, and t[…]

Definition of the American Dream: https://www.[…]

US Presidential election 2024 thread.

The funniest thing is that RFK Jr. is in play as a[…]

Taiwan-China crisis.

It's been 10 with Xi so far. :roll: I'd try talk[…]