Why don't more men identify as liberal?

[ElboRuum]

One of the most disturbing statistics in the last election, for me anyway, is that if you were a white male, you had an upwards of 80% chance of voting for Romney.

Now I know that this question has been asked before in many places here and in many forms, but at least for my own interest in the matter, most of the reasons given didn't quite smell at all complete. For example, the assertion of homophobia or racism or loss of privilege often dominate the conversation, and I believe that in a measure, those things factor in, especially if we're talking about people who identify as a teabagger, but I think there is more going on there than what is being set forth in these discussions.

At the risk of delivering evidence which some might describe as excessively anecdotal, let me just say that I know quite a few men who have what could easily called a liberal or progressive philosophy. Very few of them, though, identify as liberals or progressives. They typically identify themselves as 'apolitical' or 'independent thinkers'. What's odd is the fact that even the ones who self-describe as apolitical, are themselves, political junkies. It's almost as though 'liberal' or 'progressive' connotes something they don't feel particularly at home with, and won't identify with, much to my chagrin as a politically engaged person who would very much like to see as many people as possible getting on the side of liberal thought.

What is it about these words (and no I don't think trading 'liberal' for 'progressive' has created a more attractive brand) and the philosophies themselves, really, do you think might be the cause of this disconnect?

[opiate69]

1. One of the main factors, imo

Is the fact that the conservative shit faces have pretty much successfully turned "liberal" into an epithet. That, and the fact that the have painted a caricature of the typical "librul" being either a smelly, dreadlocked college student who puts spikes in trees to save the spotted owl or an effeminate, tastefully bearded, Volvo-driving former hippie suburbanite.

[ElboRuum]

3. So it's an image problem?

I would agree with the idea that conservative shit faces have turned liberal into an epithet. But it seems they haven't been as successful with "progressive". Nevertheless, like I said in the OP, the "rebranding" of liberal as 'progressive' hasn't really been all that successful in attracting otherwise liberal men from identifying with it. I guess this is what I'm talking about the arguments never "smelling quite complete" in the OP.

Let's talk about the caricature you mentioned for a bit more. I know these caricatures very well.

But let's be honest with ourselves for a moment.

Have the caricatures become somewhat accepted in modern liberalism as the faces of liberalism by liberals? Does liberalism push away people who don't fit these caricatures?

To sum up the question, does this image problem have solely to do with the right-wing noise machine's success in demonizing liberalism unfairly for their own political gain, or is it possible that other factors, possibly self-inflicted, may be at work? If a person who looks like an extra from Duck Dynasty, but has progressive views, fit comfortably within liberalism or does it reflexively look upon that person as "not liberal".

[opiate69]

5. Well, another thing I've noticed is,

People (mostly men, but not exclusively) my age (45) and younger tend to have a very strong aversion to identifying as a part of any group. There is an almost pathological "individualist" streak. Especially when it comes to politics, because, as we so often hear, "both parties are the same..." Even though, for those of us who pay attention, they're demonstrably not.
As for the self inflicted image question, that's a little harder to answer. I actually kinda do look like a duck dynasty extra, but really the only place my "Liberal Credentials" are ever called into question by other liberals is here at DU, where only probably half a dozen people actually know what I look like. Granted, when I do go to political events in the real world, I still can't get any quality time with say, Norm Dicks or Patty Murray, but I'd ascribe that to financial reasons... I'm not one of the big-money donors who can host fund raisers at their upscale, "Better Homes and Gardens" exurban McMansion.

[ElboRuum]

7. To the first point...

...I would tend to agree (I am in the group you mention, agewise) insofar as the idea that we are a bit averse to group identification. However, I would say that this stems, not from some individualist streak, per se, as group identification and belonging at least in our earlier years was pathologically important. I still see people identifying with groups of my own age and younger, so long as they feel comfortable doing so. For some reason, 'liberal' does not fit in that comfort zone, so there tends to be a lot of deflection in the political arena... "I wouldn't go so far as to call myself 'liberal', but I think that the income inequality in the U.S. is a source of a lot of the problems we seem to have..." or something.

Interesting that you should say you kind of DO look like a duck dynasty extra. I look like that 'other' type of conservative. You know, clean-shaven, well-groomed, hair all in place, conservatively dressed. I can't count the number of times I've had to fend off someone who engaged me in discussing the right-wing-talking-point-du-jour by casually explaining that conservatism, as expressed by modern adherents, is an exercise in enormous stupidity and that if they believed me to be a receptive audience that it goes to the strength of the adage of never judging a book by its cover. I get this from liberals too, who assume I am a member of the Ayn Rand fan club and have a favorable view of tax sheltering for the 1%.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Yeah, I've noticed that DU doesn't always gel real well with the actual, objective outside Universe.

Out in the outside Universe I'm a pretty dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but here on DU I'm some sort of corporatist libertarian poop-brain. Not to mention an MRA, which I totally had to look up to find out what it meant.

[Eleanors38]

36. Many on DU are into self-hussling, like monkeys at the San Antonio Zoo...

Most of my friends know me as pretty left-of-center. But here, I'm a NRA-lovin' RW troll who suffers from LSWMR* disease. I've seen this practiced before, pre-Innertubes, but it was relatively rare and behind the curve. Now with the Tubes, it's a dominant style which owes its presence more to position than to numbers of adherents. The I'm-more-left-than-you folks have done their share to disparage "liberalism."
_____
*Liberal Straight White Male Racist

[Major Nikon]

2. The difference between white men and white women isn't that significant

Just sayin'

[ElboRuum]

4. Possibly...

But it really wasn't my point. The Romney vote was only to highlight the greater issue, which is that of self-identification or lack thereof in men who, absent of any reason not to, still refuse to call themselves by the l-word.

[Major Nikon]

14. I understand that part

My point was that there's almost as many white women in the same boat, so the reasons could be very much the same.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Honestly, in my experience political divisions break more on geographic and religious lines

than gender ones.

I mean, you can lump people together into all sorts of statistical aggregations-- but I'm not sure where you're getting this 80+% chance of white males voting for Romney.

[ElboRuum]

10. Well...

First, let me just apologize up front for the 80% thing. Someone on DU had linked somewhere that 4 in 5 white males who voted in the 2012 election voted for Romney. Now, the apology is for not having a link to back it up. I have been searching for a bit, and maybe it's that my Google-fu is not up to snuff today. Strangely, it is devilishly hard to find a demographics chart which breaks down by both ethnicity and gender, rather than just one or the other. The one I did find which combined these two categories maddeningly selects out only the 18-29 demographic. If you have information to the contrary, I welcome it, as I don't want to have a discussion predicated on a falsehood.

Second, that really wasn't the focus of the post, more or less just an introduction of the idea. Political divisions as expressed in elections only measure votes, not political identifications. A person may vote for someone they consider liberal without actually identifying as liberal. I know very few males who identify as liberal although they might have all the earmarks of a liberal philosophy, if not point-for-point, certainly in a few key areas. That's really the intent of my OP, to discuss why liberalism does not resonate as a point of identification with men and does this affect liberalism negatively as a whole.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I hear you. And it's a question which has been broached, in various forms, in here before I think.

It's a good one.

Personally, I eschew (gezundheit!) labels in general so I don't get too wrought out about it, but I sort of figured out my political outlook when I was 12 and haven't done a whole lot of seismic changing in that regard, since then. I've driven around with left-wing bumper stickers on my cars, although probably more in the past when I was driving a hippiemobile to Dead shows, so I guess I never really got too hung up on the self-labeling-- or worrying about it.

It's funny that you say you get perceived as a right-wing, club for growth type. It's been a long time since this stuff percolated in my consciousness-- one of the things I like about the Pac NW is just the general stay-out-of-each-other's-face ness that seems to be woven into the fabric of the environment -- but back in the day when I was cycling between being a longhair and a shorthair, I used to laugh at how I could cut my hair and then all of a sudden my credentials as a hippie were called into question. Like suddenly the people smoking the joint next to me at Shoreline thought I was a narc.

[hfojvt]

45. 80% is far too high

I just look for exit polls, like here

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

White males were 34% of the electorate and voted for Romney by 62% to 35%.

White females were 38% of the electorate and voted for Romney by 56% to 42%.

If Romney had gotten even 68% of the white male vote, he'd be President today.

[westerebus]

8. I prefer dissident.

Or eclectic radical.

Liberals for the most part want to work within the system as it exists to change it "for the better".

Conservatives work inside the system to retain their influence to stifle any change not "in their interest".

At this point in time, I prefer a radical change to the system.

Which puts me at odds in either camp.

For example, the corruption in the system is in both party's.

I don't see that as being a choice.

The corruption needs to go.

I have no interest in funding either party with tax payer dollars.

I do think direct democracy is the way to go.

Or draft the entire Congress the next time they want a war and they go first.

Yeah, I'm a dissident.

[ElboRuum]

11. OK...

...so let's pursue that a bit.

The OP is really about men and their reticence to self-identify as liberals even if their viewpoints are, from the best that could pass as an objective view, liberal in substance and content. Since you are likely one of these people I am talking about (assuming you are male of course, you are on a board populated by progressives, discussing issues from a liberal standpoint, while avoiding the self-identification), you might be a good candidate with which to address the topic directly.

If I suggested that liberalism encompasses change of the system itself (it does, I believe), would you be more inclined to self-identify as a liberal, or would you still have reasons to avoid it?

[westerebus]

13. I will have to get back to you.

Time to go to work.

Short answer, having progressive interests in common, does nor preclude identifying oneself as a dissident.

Talk to you later.

[westerebus]

27. Good morning.

Looking at the replies to your question, there are more than a few points of view among several men here.

If you asked if the policy out of the White House on drone use meets their perception as liberals, I think you would find few would agree. While, the majority would agree self defense of the nation is a given.

Nuance. The herd of cats under the big tent.

Then there is age difference. Experience difference. Educational difference. East coast, fly over, west coast difference. Religious, spiritual or heathen. And the all important economic ladder.

Supporting a policy of equal rights from an economic point of view, think capitalism as it relates to wage labor, has little resemblance to liberal policy. Women entering into the labor force in large numbers depressed wages across the genders. The intent of the policy may well have been to eliminate historical barriers in total, the result is mixed.

To get back to myself, their is no appeal to either label/identification that doesn't carry baggage.

Politically, I would just as soon support a Bernie Sanders, as I do support a Mark Warner, for the policies that call for moving the Nation in a direction that benefits the majority.

My opinion is the current system needs radical change.

I know there is a long way to go to get to a place that puts We the People ahead of the liberal-conservative divide.

[ElboRuum]

28. The current system DOES need change.

There's no argument about that. Of course there is always the argument about the system itself being flawed or whether rooting out specific actors or correcting certain missteps will improve the situation. Many points of view there as well.

You make an interesting statement here when you state that "To get back to myself, their is no appeal to either label/identification that doesn't carry baggage." What baggage is there, in your estimation, to the idea of 'liberal' or 'progressive'?

[westerebus]

31. Liberal is what sense? In what context?

Back to the economic basics? Individual property rights. Free markets. Free trade.

Morphed into capitalism which ran amok.

The rule of law?

The S&L prosecutions compared to the Wall Street windfall of 2008.

Religious freedom?

Atheist liberal or church going liberal on a scale of 1 to 10 who's the liberal?

To be secure in one's own person and one's property?

Foreclosure fraud on an epic scale destroying trillions of dollars of generational wealth building.

Human rights?

America has the largest prison population on the planet.

Organized labor?

Do they have a seat at the table when profit distribution commences?

You can say yes, but, the conservatives caused this and are far far worse. To which I will say, do you not see a pattern here? The last time there was a liberal Congress they impeached Nixon and you could count the liberals in it on two hands.

Progressive policy and liberal ideas are wonderful things. Idealism needs to come to grips with reality.

America rejected Nixon and went for Kennedy, they wanted fresh ideas to inspire them. America got blood instead. LBJ cajoled the Congress into passing the Civil Rights act and then he quit. Nixon to Ford interrupted by Carter. Regan to Bush to Clinton. Bush to Obama.

It is not that difficult to see where the neo-cons came from or the neo-liberal policies they spawned.

Just follow the money. From the arms makers to the poppy fields to the three letter organizations that complete the circle. With the exception of Carter, none of them are liberals.

The idea that liberalism is untarnished is as worthy as conservatism is not rewarded in this country.

Remove the campaign speeches and what do you get? The American Empire in all its ghastly glory.

What is worse is conservatism fails more so.

I reject the idea that a title carries any more burden than it accepted for itself.

I dissent.

[ElboRuum]

32. Actually, none of those things...

...even come close to the context of this conversation. But I see you want to make speeches rather than be conversant. I'm disappointed in that really.

[westerebus]

33. The identification "liberal" does not exist in a vacuum.

The idea of liberal philosophy is one thing, putting it into the context of American politics, it's the outcome that matters.

You asked for a clarification on my view of the baggage attached to the term liberal as an identification.

I presented to you a list of liberal concepts and questioned their outcomes.

It would be just as easy to use conservative concepts and much easier to see their flaws.

Sorry you don't like the choices of American voters, I can't change that history.

More voters position themselves as independents each year. It's been that way for decades.

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a conservative.

I want the system changed. I simply do not want to keep what is corrupted.

That puts me outside the main stream. Sorry that doesn't fit your way of thinking.

The state has its place. It should derive its authority from the consent of the people.

That is the liberal cornerstone of political philosophy.

The driver of which is economics.

[ElboRuum]

34. And yet, more speeches.

You still haven't answered my question, though. You need context? I'd have thought the context in this thread would be pretty obvious and transparent, I don't think the parameters of this discussion could be more clear. If you want hints, there is the OP and the other responses that others have provided.

When you're done telling me about the dissenting, system=changy, non-mainstreamish character you have of which you seem so pointlessly proud, perhaps then you'd have time to answer the question put to you.

[westerebus]

39. I have answered your question. You refuse to accept my answer.

[ElboRuum]

40. No you have not.

I don't believe that you will either.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Most of the "reasons" are actually self-justification.

For example, the assertion of homophobia or racism or loss of privilege often dominate the conversation

They're the worst kind of "explanations" because they not only free us from any responsibility for outreach, but actively discourage it.

The bigger problem with the gender gap in voting is that when women marry, they adopt the voting patterns of their husbands.

I think you touched on an answer here. People tend to mirror what your expectations of them are. If men are expected, stereotyped and believed to be privileged homophobic racists, they tend to gravitate toward groups for whom being labeled that way isn't a problem.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Conservatism endears itself to the idiocy of male machismo.

With all of its emotional remoteness, physical violence and anti-intellectualism. Traits which are idealized among much of the male population.

[YoungDemCA]

17. +1

nt

[ElboRuum]

18. Interesting, but not at all what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about conservatism and people who so identify. I am talking about the reticence of men who are of what could be objectively be called generally liberal position but refuse to identify as either liberal or progressive. Please read the OP again.

Please do not attempt to hijack the thread with statements such as these. In addition to being a very inaccurate broad-brushing, it also has little to do with the topic at hand.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. I'm not hijacking the thread. I'm giving you an answer.

So you disagree with my conclusions. And I probably disagree with yours. Now let's get to business...

Conservatism endears itself to men because it caters to the idiocy of male machismo. You ask why men who would otherwise label themselves liberals would stay faithful to the conservative label and I gave you an answer. If you find it unsatisfactory, that is a different story from saying it's irrelevant or "threadjacking."

[ElboRuum]

20. Your answer fails to answer the question...

...and answers a question never asked instead. Not threadjacking? Fine, then call it misunderstanding.

I am not referring to conservatism or conservatives in the slightest. I find your answer unsatisfactory not because I disagree but because it is a non-sequitur. I am referring to men who do not accept the liberal or progressive moniker for themselves even though their general philosophy matches very closely to it. Note, I did not mean that they identified as conservative. In fact they do not identify as conservative at all, rather preferring to look at themselves as 'apolitical' or 'independent thinkers'.

Now if you have a conjecture to provide as to why a liberal minded individual who does not identify as conservative would be averse or uninterested in identifying as liberal or progressive, I'd be interested in your response. If you're more interested in discussing the 'idiocy of male machismo as it applies to conservative thought' then perhaps this isn't the thread for you.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. I suppose talking about the 80% of men who voted for Romney was accidental?

That is why I spoke of the appeal of conservatism. No worry. I don't need to alter my argument to address your other point. I simply need to bring it up.

The reason why otherwise liberal men do not identify as liberal is because the symbolism, warranted or betrayed, of the liberal moniker is antithetical to the appeal of the male machismo. In other words, it's an embarrassing title to hold for those who still feel a need to conform to the aggressive, emotionless male stereotype.

[ElboRuum]

22. Not accidental. Illustrative.

Included as an introduction to the topic but not necessarily indicative of the main thrust of the argument.

So what you're suggesting is that there is no other factor, just a desire to conform to what you perceive is a male social imperative? Nothing else at all?

What makes you think that a liberal-minded male would not find this social imperative antiquated? Most of those who I've met who exhibit this behavior that I refer to don't seem to throw in with the 'aggressive, emotionless male' stereotype, indicating if not directly, then indirectly, that this is not an issue for them. Again, anecdotal, but I would submit that one of the mindsets exhibited by liberal-minded males is likely a rejection of this stereotype, not reinforcement.

[Gravitycollapse]

23. To accept an ideology but refuse the name implies some sort of associational shame...

Not that I blame the men for this. The right-wing propaganda machine is largely responsible for the confusion.

If you are raised in an environment which labels liberals as weak, even if you gain the ideology of liberalism piece meal, that shame will tend to stick with you. Especially if you are clinging to an outward identity which is beholden to the conservative upbringing you've experienced. I speak of this not simply from theory but also from experience, personal and learned from others.

I grew up watching Fox News in a deeply religious, deeply conservative community where a word like "liberal" literally implied biblical evil. It also was negatively associated with things like femininity and homosexuality because the conservative ideology caters to strict gender norms, emotional remoteness, anti-intellectualism and violence.

Where I grew up, if you were a liberal you were called things like "faggot" or "pussy." Despite abandoning this sort of conservative bullying long ago, that deeply instilled emotional reflex persists to some degree.

Even if you weren't raised in a deeply fucked up community like I was, the idolatry of the stereotypical "male" exists almost everywhere and it still resists much of the symbolism associated with liberalism. So you have a country and a society that has historically been beholden to conservative religious influence, and it has, which still places a great amount of shame on the liberal identity.

[ElboRuum]

24. I don't know if it is 'shame' per se.

Like I said, it's not like these men seem to perceive it as shameful. They just refuse it. The question would in my mind be, what in such a person's mind be problematic about either the terms 'liberal' or 'progressive' if it is not perceived as shameful. I just think there's a bit more going on here than conservative=manlyman, liberal=weakman.

While the idolatry of the stereotypical male exists almost everywhere, that would indicate to me the presence of conservatives everywhere. I don't think people who would worship the idol are in any danger of self-identifying as liberal, in fact, I believe that they would proudly identify as conservatives.

All that said, I won't disagree with the statement that liberalism=weakness in male terms still persists. I just don't know how prevalent it is among people other than conservatives.

[Gravitycollapse]

25. I'm a Freudian at heart so you have my bias.

I think this deeply embedded shame has an immense influence later on in life even if the person's thought processes have changed dramatically. Shame is an emotion and emotions are not necessarily subject to logic. They in fact resist logic rather well.

[the_working_poor]

35. I think because a "liberal man" has feminine connotations

Ironic really.
The way the left has allowed "liberal" be berated over the decades is a big reason why.
Being a liberal is to be swishy, gay, and slightly feminine.. ie an insult to all things "MANLY" in "modern" culture. Honestly if we WERE modern, none of these hings would matter to real men.

I think men don't identify as proudly as liberal is because of a subconscious desire NOT to be seen as "less manly".

Despite what the other gender may say, women DO think less of men, in general, who aren't sufficiently "manly"

On this board the number of "manlyness" insults I've read from people who should know better is astonishing to me, and only reenforces WHY I think men have trouble admitting they're liberal.

I'm a liberal. I have made a quiche, bread, and overall I'm a decent cook. I'm also better at sewing than a lady friend of mine who I partner with making crochet my little ponies. all things that make me "less manly" and I honestly don't care anymore.

but many many men do, and I think that's the crux of the problem. Men who are comfortable with who they are identify as Liberal. Those who aren't, don't. We need to make it clear to those men that it's ok to be a democrat, and it's ok to be a liberal.

[Fridays Child]

38. I've never thought of it that way. Liberal men are sexy.

Al Gore. Bill Clinton. Barack Obama. Carl Sagan (RIP). I think we could do one hell of a "sexy liberal men" thread--no problem.

By the way, welcome to DU.

[ElboRuum]

41. That probably is at least a part of it...

Liberalism has taken a beating over the years. I don't think it's a question of "manliness" to people who eschew it who otherwise would not. I think that's a red herring. People who would otherwise identify don't have a problem with this. But I do think it may be cryptically along these lines, in other words, branded along the lines of wishy-washy, indecisive, unwilling to make hard choices, or other ideas that men, I believe WOULD take issue with. Liberalism has stood by while conservatism has punched it in the eye so many times over the years that I've lost count. Perhaps it is this idea that liberalism didn't do much to defend itself from its opponents attempts at recasting it that men feel is pervasive in the progressive quarters, that it has no fight left in it. Maybe this is casting a stone too far, but sometimes I think we're playing to lose.

[Major Nikon]

26. I grew up in an earlier time when most people in the South were Democrats

Remember than the GOP was on the side of the North during the Civil War and was still hated tremendously for this reason at one time in the South. The South has always been socially conservative although not always politically or economically conservative. Back then the word liberal really didn't have the same connotations you describe although it certainly does today in the mouth breathing demographic. After the Southern Strategy and the GOP's successful flip of the South following the success of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, everything changed. Liberal became synonymous with Democrat during the late 60's and particularly so in the 70's and so began the demonization of the word by those who hate civil rights.

[Eleanors38]

37. 2 reasons for lack of I.D. with liberals...

I) Most males and a good chunk of females fail to see much relevance or even clarity in "liberal" policies. I have trouble pin-pointing what is "liberal or progressive" within the standard-bearing Democratic Party. Why should I be surprised when less militant citizens are suspicious of a pocket full of mumbles?

2) A year-after-decade-after- generation smash-mouth of "liberalism" by the far right (together with a noticeable similar attack by some alleged lefty groups), all with NO credible comeback, have left many folks, including a disproportionate number of white males, with a great distrust of Anything resembling liberalism.

It's not some fanciful macho, it is lack of meaningful identity with and trust in an increasingly hazy ideology at a time when the "average white band" is suffering significant economic dislocation.

[ElboRuum]

42. Good points.

I do think that liberalism is undergoing some sort of identity crisis of sorts, insofar as what it encompasses. I believe that liberalism has become too academic, too long (and as you said, "hazy) on ideology, and too short on practical ideas. I can imagine men having a problem with this, especially when income disparity is impacting everyone except the very rich in a very negative and unsustainable way, requiring immediate attention and action.

[nomorenomore08]

43. Unfortunately, I think "emotional remoteness, physical violence and anti-intellectualism" is

pretty spot on as far as diagnosing a lot of what ails us as a society. No one, not even the most "progressive" individual, is immune to the cultural influence of these ideas. And I don't doubt that the reluctance to claim the "liberal/progressive" label has a lot to do with fear of not being perceived as "manly."

[MicaelS]

29. I think article speaks to the issue.

Why working-class people vote conservative

But on matters relating to group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (treating things as sacred and untouchable, not only in the context of religion), it sometimes seems that liberals lack the moral taste buds, or at least, their moral "cuisine" makes less use of them. For example, according to our data, if you want to hire someone to criticise your nation on a radio show in another nation (loyalty), give the finger to his boss (authority), or sign a piece of paper stating one's willingness to sell his soul (sanctity), you can save a lot of money by posting a sign: "Conservatives need not apply."

Even on the two moral taste buds that both sides claim – fairness and liberty – the right can often outcook the left. The left typically thinks of equality as being central to fairness, and leftists are extremely sensitive about gross inequalities of outcome – particularly when they correspond along racial or ethnic lines. But the broader meaning of fairness is really proportionality – are people getting rewarded in proportion to the work they put into a common project? Equality of outcomes is only seen as fair by most people in the special case in which everyone has made equal contributions. The conservative media (such as the Daily Mail, or Fox News in the US) is much more sensitive to the presence of slackers and benefit cheats. They are very effective at stirring up outrage at the government for condoning cheating.

Similarly for liberty. Americans and Britons all love liberty, yet when liberty and care conflict, the left is more likely to choose care.

A lot of men I know have a very definite view of right and wrong, and the idea that issues are only endless shades of gray is anathema to them. The fact that many liberals are anti-death penalty means they are viewed as being "soft on crime". In other words being labeled as a liberal means you have a weak or poor moral compass. And many men do not want to be identified as having a weak or poor moral compass.

Too often liberals are seen as caving on personal freedom, which many men value highly. Many men have a strong libertarian (small L) streak for personal freedoms. Look how various people on DU want to to severely restrict or ban guns, erotica, tobacco, vaping (e-cigs), etc, all in the name of "the greater good", with nothing in return to the individual.

[ElboRuum]

30. Interesting points.

Vis-a-vis, small 'l' libertarianism. I believe this may be a part of it as well. Men seem to take much greater issue with the 'nanny-state' aspects of modern liberalism. I do believe that since the 60's, liberalism has embraced the idea of "societal good" over "personal freedom" when the two have come into apparent conflict more and more.

Let's address this directly, in your experience are liberals "seen" as caving on personal freedom (perception only), or is it true with modern liberalism that freedom is materially secondary to a stricter societal order? If the latter, what do you think of that position?

[CFLDem]

44. Well

One party lauds men for being the brave manly men they are, and the other henpecks men into collective guilt.

Which one do you think men are going to vote for?