Canada’s recent federal election suggests a growing gender divide in political preferences.
Polling indicated women voters leaned strongly toward the Liberals, while an increasing number of men — particularly younger men — gravitated toward the Conservatives.
This polarization was not simply a matter of partisan preference but reflected deeper social, cultural and economic realignments rooted in identity politics and diverging values.
The gender gap also mirrors patterns across western democracies, where far-right populist parties increasingly draw male support through nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-feminist narratives, while women — especially racialized and university-educated — opt for progressive parties promoting equality and social protection.
So what’s the issue, again? Just that it sounds scary?
Why is “eat the reach” messaging that “lost the plot” if the slogan does exactly what it’s supposed to do (be powerful and popular, appealing to human nature)?
I don’t know, you tell me. I don’t see rich people getting the short end of a stick because out there a bunch of protestors are holding “eat the rich” plaques. I still don’t quite get what’s this phrase being used as an example for given it’s so inconsequential.
Maybe sleep on it and try coming back with fresh eyes. I’m getting exhausted just looking at all the threads to pluck in this comment. And I sincerely mean no disrespect nor judgement, but seeing this conversation through is starting to look like more work than I’m personally willing to invest while I’m supposed to be on vacation.
lol fair enough, and it’s perhaps a not very useful point to dwell anyway, it seems it was just an example