Left-leaning policies, parties and politicians have typically aimed to appeal to demographic niches, rather than broadly stated goals that benefit larger subsets of the voting population. Someone like Jenny Kwan, an NDP MP that’s been in her seat for decades now and serves as a ‘minority rights’ type critic, is basically unable to empathize with / represent “average white middle class” voters interests, and it really shows in any communication you have with her. Her political support is almost explicitly rooted in appealing to minority groups, and saying “You have it so much worse than white people, so govt should help you out!”, which gains her enough appeal amongst her various niche sub groups to continue to control the riding (even though her riding has gotten jack shit in terms of fed funding for her entire tenure – they just keep voting against their own interests really).
Because their base has become so entrenched in demographic politics / appealing to racialized groups, any platform that attempts to speak more broadly / appeal to non-racialized groups, presents a potential threat to their underlying base of supporters. Jagmeet, when doing “meet and greets” with the public, instantly and almost exclusively gravitated towards other sikhs – because his support in the party was largely based on his appeal to that particular minority group, who voted en masse for him because he’s Sikh, moreso than his policies/electability.
Put slightly differently, they don’t target “traditional” left leaning economic / political ideologies, because their position in the ‘new’ left is based on appeal to influential minority groups. You don’t need to appeal to “everyone”, or “as many people as possible”, if you can lock down a big minority group, who’ll vote for you just because of your race. So you don’t see them appealing to the broader public interest. And while that approach works in some segments (Like Jenny’s riding, or at NDP conventions), it generally isn’t a winning strategy when replicated across the broader voting public. Jagmeet could win his NDP leadership race, because the people voting there skewed heavily into his niche, but he couldn’t win the more ‘open’ race, because his race-based supporters weren’t a significant enough slice of the broader population to carry it. Even more, the racial-based support block actually serves to alienate voters of other races – you can’t have a bunch of Sikh people goin “Finally one of us is gettin in, we’re gonna see good changes!” without that reading as “We’re voting for our own race because we assume there will be race-based benefits / targeted programs to help us as a result! We’re voting for racism in our favour!”.
And that fear is somewhat justified, unfortunately. I mean, JWR was our first FN AG. She reformed bail to specifically address FN representation in prisons, and is the person responsible for Canada moving to a rotating door for criminals – she literally revised bail to make it so that LE had to let everyone out asap before their official day in court, because she felt some demographics were over-represented in prison. She also mandated race-based reviews of cases, which has resulted in things like a FN dude who stabbed a white stranger in an elevator, killing him… getting zero jail time as a result, because he was FN and his victim a white guy (happened in Vancouver in 2020). These are moves that are explicitly “bad” for the general public, and arguably bad for equity; a FN AG put in policies benefiting her race explicitly to the disadvantage of everyone else / ‘the public at large’. Canada also had Harjit Sajjan from the Liberals, use Canadian spec ops to save non-Canadian Sikhs during the pull out from Kabul – a fairly clear case where he racially discriminated in favour of his own race, to which the Liberal gov said “He’s not racist, cause you wouldn’t call him racist if he wasn’t a Sikh himself!”. Like no shit, someone of a certain race using govt resources to benefit their own race is what people call racist… but not in Left-leaning politician speak. In left leaning politics, it’s ok for minorities to use govt resources that way.
I dunno. I think left leaning parties / politicians have decades of this sort of stuff to try and work through, if they’re seriously wanting to try and appeal to the broader “working class”. And the political base of the party is not really interested in moving in that direction. Sorta like how the dems in the states were so hard up for getting a woman on the ticket, that they torpedo’d Bernie and alienated a crapload of working class voters. Same general vibe.
I don’t get why you’re asking a question, when you have a general answer in the body of your post.
So one party is targeting (racialized) minority groups, and promoting feminist-style equality (equality in ways that benefit minorities and women, but not targeting areas where men are worse off), and social protections that are historically skewed in favour of women / minority groups. The government screening for “people who identify as an Equity Employment group” is in line with left leaning policies, where Canada defines “Equity Employment groups” as “any non-male, or non-caucasian, person”. Programs/initiatives that provide funding / increased access to women, are arguably “anti” men, especially when experienced on an individual level (being denied a job because you’re a guy, even if on aggregate it’s for some ‘equity’ balancing, still feels like you’ve been discriminated against because of your gender).
Feminist theory doesn’t hide its intentions, but people don’t bother to think about how men perceive it in ‘late stage’ feminist cultures (where the imbalance is far less extreme than other areas of the world). Feminism is NOT egalitarian at its core. It’s defined (a bit loosely) as the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. That means they are not advocating for equality in areas where women are advantaged, nor in places to gain equity for men – theories about making groups “actually” equal, would be egalitarian, not feminist. Think of it like a list where you’ve defined the advantages and disadvantages of both men and women, but then there’s a giant social movement to remove the disadvantages from just one side of the list… it gets lopsided real quick, and unsurprisingly the group that’s been ignored gets pissed off and starts pushing back. We constantly hear about the wage gap, or health care deficiencies for women… but we ignore that women live 5 years longer on average (so better ‘results’ at a high level for health care, and longer time in retirement on CPP/OAS) – they get ~25% more time in their retirement years, which in addition to old age supports, translates to far higher medical costs for that period as old people eat more resources. Even something like increased supports for seniors, a “general” social support program, disproportionately benefits women because of this underlying inequity that’s ignored. We ignore men’s poor showing in higher education, which forecasts their earning potential in decades to come – they’re now double digits behind women in terms of getting degrees. The govt funds womens centers with Fent task force money, cause 1 in 5 deaths from fent are women… the 4 in 5 deaths that are guys are just… whateva, let em die. We celebrate all woman companies, they get special features in newspapers and tons of public support; companies that are men-only are just waiting to be sued. We allow women only spaces like women’s gyms, male exclusive clubs are generally not allowed / torn down by lawsuits (if they grow beyond a facebook group or whatever): I’ve seen local barbers taken to human rights tribunals, men can’t even have ‘men’ only haircut spots.
Discussion of trans rights, are almost entirely couched in protecting women’s rights – preserving their gender-based privileges in a world where men can “identify” to gain those privileges. Its likely partly why they push hard for a clear definition of what a woman is, so that they can continue to exclude men from those privileges. It’s super rare to see cases where someone’s in an uproar about a FTM trans person playing a sport (I haven’t seen any of these, personally). I’d posit that the lack of defined privilege programs supporting men is one reason FTM doesn’t raise as many concerns. That even goes beyond just trans concerns somewhat, in that on job applications, if checking “female” means you pass a quota check, why wouldn’t every man identify as woman (or as “gender fluid”) for gaining employment? It’s not like work’s gonna force you to fuck in the employee lounge to prove it. People like Rowling are basically feminists working to preserve women’s privileges, which is at odds with a chunk of trans folks who want to gain those privileges by ‘opting in’. The fear is basically that men will realise there’s no reason not to opt in unless there are very clear barriers put in play, which if not planned for could eliminate a chunk of women’s privileges.
Anyhow, to rephrase what you said a bit:
One party is about providing programs and benefits to women and minorities. That party isn’t really about providing anything for men; it may benefit them in general with its policies, but those policies are “for everyone”, while they specifically target additional beneficial policies to “anyone but men”. The other party said they’d remove the programs that target women and minorities with benefits, which indirectly benefits men/the majority race. The party that aligns more to men’s general ‘needs’ got more of the male vote. The party that aligns more to women’s general ‘needs’ got more of the female vote.
Really not all that surprising.