The girlfriend is an example, it's a proxy for "fixing my life".
All my life I've been shamed by leftists, mostly because I'm a white male from a good Christian family and succeeded at schools. It has had impact on my career for example, since companies decided to promote junior women instead. Leftists couldn't get over that and see the guy who needed help to be socially included. Leftists are pretty happy to see a rich person be socially rejected or committing suicide, actually. I bet many people voting Trump feel just the same: Leftists are prompt at shaming people for being privileged while not caring for their problems. We need a return of solidarity, and if not that, then we'll just vote for ourselves.
Hence, I have stopped caring for what leftists say. But if people could get enough solidarity to help me get my life fixed (the girlfriend is just an example), then I'd go back to voting normally.
Yes, I've seen a psychologist. Psychologists can fix the person, not society. If society keeps sending crap because you're a white male, nothing will repair your self-esteem.
Or maybe people shunned you because you are an inconsiderate, spoiled, full of himself narcissist? You seem to think that those women who have been promoted shouldn't have simply because they were women. Maybe they were better than you. Ever thought of that?
> We need a return of solidarity
So you are voting for a party who's main concept is spewing hatred against minorities?
> But if people could get enough solidarity to help me get my life fixed
Why the fuck should leftists, right-wingers, socialists, or nazis sort your life out? You are a grown man. Sort it yourself.
Leftist parties are spewing hatred just as much as FN does. It's just that you don't notice it, because you identify to the minorities' cause. For example it's now forbidden to show a nativity scene in a public space in France (That was decided this week), while it's ok to wear the niqab. It's just that leftists can't wrap their mind about the hypothesis that – maybe – it's now Catholics who are the victims.
Other example: A leftist (Yesterday at lunch! It's not like it never happens!) made a joke about "all priests are rapists anyway" and no-one said anything. But if anyone made a joke about "All Arabs are thieves", they'd sure face immediate forced resignation. Both are stupidly gross generalizations that no-one should ever say.
Other example: Leftists want to close the Catholic schools in France, "because they're inequal". Truth is, Catholic schools are better schools with better results and fewer violence, and that would kill the place where I was educated. The Khmers Rouges have tried eliminating the elites, that didn't bode well for them.
Hatred from leftists and from Muslim partisans is everyday. But the world has changed. We can either match your hatred with FN, or leftists can decide to stop oppressing the historical part of the population.
You are not talking about the average person here. It depends on what circles you frequent but I am sure that most people in France are neither hardcore leftists nor FN supporters. Extremism is wrong from all sides.
> Both are stupidly gross generalizations that no-one should ever say.
Except that FN says that about Arabs and other minorities, that and much more.
> Leftists want to close the Catholic schools in France
What they want and what they can achieve is very far. I want a lot of things, doesn't mean most people agree with me and that they will give those things to me.
> We can either match your hatred with FN
Or you know, take the approach a normal person should and side with neither of the crazies. As I said, extremism and hatred from either side will not solve anything. Hatred brews hatred, the only way to defeat bigotry, closed-mindedness and ignorance from one side is not by joining the opposing side. It's by taking the middle road and trying to find meaning and think with your brain.
Did you ever consider that ever person has their own burden to bear? That maybe the white male dominant hierarchy placed oppressive burdens on the groups you have now come to resent? You don't at all see the irony in your reaction to feeling similar pain?
I've considered it, then researched stats about women and inequality because they didn't match my experience.
All I've seen was a gross exaggeration of women's case: For example it's always the gross average of wage gap (32%) that is shown in the article's titles, and I've checked around me that no woman is aware that the average wage gap is only 8% for the same level of education and experience in the job, and the average goes the other way depending on the criteria we use (e.g. women get paid 22% more than men in Atlanta and 15% more in NY).
Also, in France, all other statistics conclude to men needing more help, while women still complain that they don't get enough: There are 18x more men who face violence on the street than women, 0.77x who get high-education degree, 2x (TWICE!) more men who are homeless, 3x who commit suicide and 20x more men in prison, so I'm a little flummoxed when I hear "Women are inequal". Examples on the same trend go on and on, see for example positive images that are associated to females ("They can do 2 things at the same time!"), negative/violent images associated to men; better education results in women than men; mark bias in mathematics in favor of women; solidarity statistics that are all favorable to women; and women keep dating richer men while high-pay jobs are more difficult for us to have, so it's a real struggle.
Men deserve dedicated help too. I'm not asking we stop helping women. I'm just asking we help men just as much, because men actually have more problems in life than women. You know, like, ...equality?
So, "white male dominant hierarchy placed oppressive burdens on the groups" doesn't trigger my solidarity anymore. Look at helping everyone who need help, instead of blaming a group for being white.
Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding this or maybe you haven't admitted it. What is this "voting normally" all about? It's clear that you don't give a damn for social pressures causing you to vote and think a certain way (normally?), because that's bit you bad. It appears that you've moved elsewhere to your own new normal (FN). If they changed and you went back, would it really be back to the same?
Are you asking "If those groups changed, would you come back to centrist voting?". Yes, my voting is only based on the womens' right criteria: I would vote for any party which doesn't propose to add up more rights to women than they currently have.
I've decided to forego any other criteria, because the groups are hypocritical with their values anyway. For example they pretended not to be racists (i.e. leftists / the President Hollande in France), but they saw nothing wrong in house-arresting 3,200 Muslims the day after the terrorist attacks, without warrant and without further proof than being filed under the "very Muslim" folder in the police notes. It wasn't necessary, it didn't yield any terrorist being arrested, and I qualify this act as a very racist action from a leftist president. I could go on and on about how leftist people fight for jobs but have never created any and have made it a burden to run a company. There is no hope in any political party of France driving France towards any kind of success, all of them will keep engaging in a sort of class warfare where anyone who's rich is considered evil, so I'll vote on the only issue that I can factually compare and on which I became expert: Their programs about women-and-men equality.
As it stands, both left and right parties propose to add up many more rights for women. See this post to quickly understand why I don't think it's fair: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12923138
Lack of confidence is highly linked with being constantly told off for being "a privileged". I regularly have to apologize for getting a degree, and if politics could stop blaming the rich, that would actually address the issue.
Plus I don't vote for a party in the hope of finding a girlfriend (lol). I vote for the party who's not proposing to add up more rights to women, because I have seen enough women be promoted to be sure the problem is the other way around.
It reminds me of Houellebecq's 'Submission', where one of the main features of islamic France is locking women in home in marriage. Women also serve as "awards" to the backers of the new regime.
I think it is true that some people put gender/sexual tensions into their politics, especially if it is radical. Grandparent might assume that in a more traditional society his chances would be better. I can't judge if it's true.
How is this related to politics? Genuinely curious since you bring this up as the first way for a political party or movement to win you 'back'.