The Political Divide Between Men and Women Is Getting Wild. One Party Is Primed to Take Advantage.
The Political Divide Between Men and Women Is Getting Wild. One Party Is Primed to Take Advantage.
It's like two separate worlds.
It has long been the case that American women are generally more liberal than American men. But among young Americans, this gender gap has widened into an enormous rift: According to recent Gallup polling, there is a 30-point differencebetween the number of women age 18–30 who self-identify as liberal and the number of men in that demographic who do the same.
That’s largely because young women have gotten much more liberal, while young men have stayed ideologically more consistent—or, according to other analyses, become more conservative and anti-feminist. (Of course, not every person identifies as a man or woman. But gender roles still play a big part in shaping our lives and politics, and in the context of this column, I am focusing mostly on the vast majority of Americans who identify as one or the other.) It’s not happening just here either; the political divide between the sexes is a trend that researchers are observing in some other countries too.
You're viewing a single thread.
I think it's pretty straightforward why this happens - liberal politics as a hive mind talks to women, but it does not talk to men. Even this piece, look at the following quote.
Actor Johnny Depp sued his ex-wife Amber Heard after she wrote a #MeToo op-ed in the Washington Post; even though the piece didn’t name him, Depp argued that it was defamatory, and legions of his fans (including plenty of women) engaged in a monthslong campaign of vicious harassment, threats, and vilification of Heard and anyone who might stand up for her.
The one case where it was at mutual abuse by both parties, they talk about Depp abusing Heard, but not Heard abusing Depp. That's why there is a divide. The problem is framed as "violence against women", instead of "domestic violence against people".
To be clear, modern society presents all people with new problems. But while generic problems like stagnating wages are being talked about as a generic issue, and women's issues get space as at least a successful special interest issue, issues disproportionately affecting men don't. This results in shitheads like Tate fleecing them and fucking up society at large as well.
I'm struggling to understand how you can take one section from examples they're giving of misogyny and extrapolate that it's a message emanating from "liberal politics as a hive mind." This is not an article describing Depp and Heard's relationship, this is an article describing the asymmetrical response of the public toward Depp vs toward Heard before any trial happened.
Oh that's easy. It's cuz they're a bad faith conservative.
I'm as left as they come, if you'd like, look at my comment history. I just don't like that there is this big culture war issue that repaints an abusers and rapists vs. decent, normal people issue into a men vs. women issue, thus dividing people and forcing a wide swathe of men who are simply being crushed by the system into the right where they will be fleeced and exploited.
But the trial has happened, and it turned out it was both of them that were shitty, and the article still doesn't bring that up. It brings a very contentious case up as a way to drive engagement into a stupid gender war issue, and takes the side of one of the abusers instead of denouncing all abuse as bad. That's my issue.
And absolutely no recognition of the problem with the statement that most college students are women.
There are parity issues on both sides of the gender divide. Both can be recognized. It's not a zero-sum game.
Women have for decades now outnumbered men on college campuses
This isn't a problematic statement, it's a statement of fact. There's no value judgment or morality associated with this statement in this article
factual, yes - but I think the point being made here is that a larger percentage of males are not being exposed to the benefits of a more expansive early adult educational experience leading to a social and cultural disconnect.
Without explanation, it can be offensive. There is no value judgment in the sentence "black people make up the vast majority of the US prison population" either.
If you don't explain why, one conclusion someone might have is women are "just smarter", and black people are "just more criminally inclined".
It’s not a zero-sum game.
This is the big point that is missed by common discourse. The problem is that men have gender-specific issues too, and those are not even being acknowledged as even being valid. Domestic abuse against men doesn't exist. The fact that homelessness or suicides affect men disproportionately, or that the alienation of people from each other affect men in different ways than women, is a taboo topic, because people feel it takes away from the focus on women's rights, or worse, that men "deserve" this as some kind of "reparations" in kind for suffering.
These are absolutely not taboo topics. I've read a ton of media about these things. From where do you derive that they're "taboo?"
Look at the article being shared. It addresses the topic of men and women drifting off to different sides of the political spectrum, and all it addresses is why women tend to the left. It conveniently leaves out why men tend to the right. It even insinuates that it's because men are actually alright with supporting abusers, rapists and paedophiles while women are not. Same thing it does to the Depp-Heard case, they were both abusers, but it only mentions Depp as being one.
I'm not saying that people in general never talk about men's issues. I'm saying that the "liberal left" does not have anything for men on its agenda, and is surprised that men are being left behind by its messaging.
This is an article about women becoming much more liberal, men staying ideologically the same and the implications of that. That you would think an article about women becoming more liberal needs to focus more on men's issues is itself a reflection of patriarchal thinking, whether or not that's your intention. There are plenty of articles covering men's issues, like tons of articles. Why do you think men are entitled to more coverage in this article?
So when you talk about the "liberal left," what issues do you think they need to talk about more?
Why do you think men are entitled to more coverage in this article?
But men are covered in this article! It outlines a ton of problems affecting men, it just either does not follow up on the causes and solutions - because who cares, right? - or outright paints it as a political opportunity for women that disaffected men are less likely voters, or even blames men as a whole for the issue.
young men have stayed ideologically more consistent—or, according to other analyses, become more conservative and anti-feminist.
A cohort of profoundly misogynistic male influencers, one of whom is currently facing criminal charges in Romania for rape and human trafficking, rose to prominence and captured the attention of young men the world over.
Marriage is declining in the U.S. in part, at least anecdotally, because women, who can now ably provide for themselves, are refusing to pair up with misogynistic men who bring little to the table. This dynamic could leave a lot more single men out there—members of a cohort who are more likely than their female counterparts to be unemployed, financially vulnerable, isolated, and lonely, which in turn can fuel anger and even violence. As young women grow more liberal and young men move right, heterosexual marriage may very well continue to decline, perhaps snowballing political, social, and economic divides.
work to bridge the divide (which, to be clear, would mean pressing men to be better and creating the conditions for both sexes to thrive)
Yeah, good job, the only way to fix this stupid gender war is "to press men to be better" and pick themselves up by their bootstraps or something.
How do women bridge the divide with men who follow misogynist influencers? How is that even possible? With men who are antifeminist and want to take away our rights?
How do women bridge the divide with men
It's not on "women". It's on all society. Stuff like this does not work like either one or the other. We are one society, men and women. We are the same in more things that matter when forming a society than we are different in.
One could start literally for free by creating successful, positive male role models in media and public discourse alongside women. I don't mean the two dimensional cutouts like Marvel heroes, but people with real problems tackling real issues. If it has to be Marvel, you can start at Deadpool. Dude was ugly as fuck and still loved.
Celebrate Men's Day and Father's Day as well as Women's Day and Mother's Day. Create acceptance and celebrate fatherhood and single fathers, fathers as homemakers as well as fathers as breadwinners. Celebrate successful (not wealthy, but societally positive) men as great examples of what a man should and can be.
There are other things that would be more expensive, like unfucking schooling. Other than reversing the underfundedness of it, make teachers be a prestigious profession again, and have more male teachers for male students to look up to. Get a bit more into why current school practices like homework, rote learning and "frontal", unidirectional lessons disadvantage boys in school. Address the conflict between the societal expectation for boys to be dominant as boys and submissive as students better. Unfuck sports as a subject, take the sole focus away from whatever flavour of profitable "sportsball" your country plays and offer more choice.
You can then go on to work. Tighten up labour safety and wellbeing practices, especially in hard physical labour disproportionately affecting men. Fight overtime as a concept in general, enforce breaks and frequent examinations of both workers' health and safety regulations. Fight back against "macho" culture not by "telling men not to rape", but by strengthening mental healthcare, and supporting hobby groups as third places where men can create friend groups to share feelings with. If broke communist countries could support hobby associations like glider airfields, shooting clubs, hiking clubs and so on, with substantial financial and material grants, why can't the most wealthy societies in history?
Make sure that every third man compared to the life expectancy of women does not die by reaching the age of 60 from the mental and physical hardship of work.
Then there are the hard parts. Like undoing the creation of barriers between people where you are not supposed to interact with other people next to you. Undoing loneliness and the "Tinderization" of relationships, and social media and all the fucked up stuff. Stop having society treat all men as potential predators.
This is just shit off the top of my head, and I'm not even an expert.
I disagree. The divide is not because we talk about "violence against women." Violence against women is a sadly vastly bigger problem rooted in eons of misogyny. That does NOT take a damn thing away from men and nbs who are abused.
Maybe the left can do more to capture the minds of young men, but how? Conservatism plays at people's base instincts, fear and ingrained culture. It's easier to avoid the cognitive dissonance of recognizing that hey, toxic masculinity does kinda suck. Or perhaps that the social construct of women in the home rearing kids is demeaning and repressive and has nothing to do with nature.
I think men have a lot of reflecting to do, and it's very hard to do that when it's uncomfortable and challenges you to think differently. Conservatism simply maintains the status quo which places men higher, and that's a lot more convenient than introspection.
All this isnt to say that men aren't being left behind when it comes to body positivity, mental health, etc. These are things that are vitally important for men too.
Also, I would avoid the Heard topic which is a beacon of misinformation and misogyny. I exclusively read negativity about Heard from news outlets and Reddit. It was like Depp was everyone's best friend as they suddenly rushed to his defense against "feminism". Blegh.
Violence against women is a sadly vastly bigger problem rooted in eons of misogyny.
According to the CDC, more than one in three women (35.6 percent) and more than one in four men (28.5 percent) in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
So the proportion isn't vastly bigger, only about 7%. Also men are much more likely to be the victims of violence generally.
And the proportion doesn't matter either. All victims of violence deserve help and empathy. Otherwise, the argument is that "minority victims don't matter". LGBTQ folks also deserve help and support tailored to their needs, despite being a relative minority.
I agree with you on this entirely
Good point, however there is more to this situation than the raw numbers. Women are a minority and simply face a different kind of oppression and violence. I mean think about women's health outcomes, anti-abortion legislation, etc. Plus, you can break those statistics down further.
By the time they're 17, 1/3 of women have experienced a rape or attempted rape, whereas the same is true for 1/4 of men.1/3rd of women rape victims experience it before age 17, whereas the same is true of 1/4 of male rape victims.In reality, only 2.6% of men reported ever being raped, which even accounting for underreporting utterly pales in comparison to 18% of women.
- “Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.
Source: https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
Regardless, just because one thing is maybe more prevalent than another doesn't mean the other isn't a problem. I do not mean to downplay violence in any form against anyone.
What I mean is focusing on violence against women isn't inherently an issue, and I don't think that's what is driving young men toward conservatism. We can focus on more than one thing at once. I think that conservatism empowers young men, elevates them. It is the path of least resistance for most because men-on-top is ingrained deeply in our society. I think that young men are gravitating to the most attractive worldview presented to them, no matter how selfish and regressive it is because it feels right.
EDIT: I got the stats wrong.
Women are a minority
Are they? Last I checked, women were actually the majority across most of the world by a very slight edge, mostly because men die earlier since hard physical labour and wars disproportionately kill men.
By the time they’re 17, 1/3 of women have experienced a rape or attempted rape, whereas the same is true for 1/4 of men. Regardless, just because one thing is maybe more prevalent than another doesn’t mean the other isn’t a problem.
Why bring it up then? What's the point?
and simply face a different kind of oppression and violence.
If they face a different kind of violence, that would imply men face a different kind of violence, too, right? If they are different from each other, that means both sexes need special attention on issues disproportionately affecting them, don't they?
What I mean is focusing on violence against women isn’t inherently an issue, and I don’t think that’s what is driving young men toward conservatism.
The problem is not "focusing on women's issues". The problem is "not focusing on men's issues".
Women are a social minority. Whites in South Africa who perpetuated the apartheid were the majority oppressing a minority, despite being vastly outnumbered. I am referring to sociological minorities, not statistical.
Why bring it up then? What's the point?
I edited my comment. The numbers are far more disparate than I initially misread. I only brought it up because we're getting into specifics and I had to do some research. Women are indeed more affected by sexual violence. What's more, over 90% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men.
that means both sexes need special attention on issues disproportionately affecting them, don't they?
Definitely.
The problem is not "focusing on women's issues". The problem is "not focusing on men's issues".
This is fair, but it sounded to me like you were implying this was a zero sum game. We can do both.
My primary assertion is that conservatism (and figures like Tate) is attractive to young men because they reinforce what society has taught for their whole lives, and if not, then it's at least a power fantasy that places them in control, which is preferable to the alternative. Reality (which some refer to as "wokeism" or "leftism") is not as tantalizing. Realizing that you as a man have implicit biases, privilege, and toxicity embedded deep within you requires a level of introspection and empathy that most young people do not possess.
I struggle to see how "the left" can capture the minds of young men in the same way when taking an objective view of reality.
What’s more, over 90% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men.
This is such a problematic statistic to bring up. It means nothing to the victims and their needs, or how should we help them. It also doesn't matter from a prevention point of view, since the vast majority of men are not rapists. It only serves to reframe the issue from "abusers against victims" to "men against women".
at least a power fantasy that places them in control, which is preferable to the alternative
What is that alternative, then? That's the problem, I do not see anyone proposing an alternative role to men in society.
I dont think it is problematic in itself. I am merely pointing out that my previous statements about the disparities between men and women were correct.
The mentality is certainly "abusers vs victims," but we cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore the context. I.e. we must recognize that most rapists are men. Most rape victims are women. Why this is the case is important to examine if we are to improve things.
Why do men need a "role" in society specifically? Is it the case that men simply feel aimless and this leads them to conservatism? To violence, even? I don't know. I don't think women go about feeling assured about their role in society which in turn makes them end up more liberal. Why would the inverse be true for men?
Again, this isn't to say we don't need support for young men or that they are never victimized. The only messages I can think of are: acknowledge and understand your privilege, act with empathy, emotions are important and should be discussed, etc. Way less sexy than shooting boar from a helicopter with a minigun or whatever it is men's role in society boils down to.
That does NOT take a damn thing away from men and nbs who are abused.
That's the point, it doesn't. But popular discourse pretends that it does in the inverse, that talking about abused men somehow weakens women's rights.
Maybe the left can do more to capture the minds of young men, but how?
As the culture war goes, the right tells men they get to become either a head of a happy family with a loving wife and kids who give meaning to your blood sweat and tears in your hard work, or they tell you that you get to become a hedonistic macho guy using and abusing all that male privilege.
What does the left tell you? For women, they have the "successful single girlboss" trope to aspire to, or even the "hardworking single mom" thing. As a man who is supposed to catch on to the liberal side of the culture war, what is my role in society?
Even the term "toxic masculinity" sucks as a lot of people misunderstand it as "societal woes caused by men", using it as a cudgel telling men that they are the cause for whatever way society sucks.
All this isnt to say that men aren’t being left behind when it comes to body positivity, mental health, etc. These are things that are vitally important for men too.
Look, that's exactly the problem. It is only okay to help men as a byproduct of something that helps women. Just look at domestic violence again. Let's say that the rates at which men experience domestic violence as a victim is not underreported for various reasons. There are still men out there being victimized. Are there any shelters out there for men?
Also, I would avoid the Heard topic which is a beacon of misinformation and misogyny.
I didn't bring it up, the article did. What I came away with was that both sides sucked they both are abusers, but a lot of media either only covers one side or the other, depending on what they want to say. My point is that they brought up the case, and they took a side, and they took the side of an abuser. If they took the opposite side, that would still be taking the side of an abuser.
What does the left tell you? For women, they have the “successful single girlboss” trope to aspire to, or even the “hardworking single mom” thing. As a man who is supposed to catch on to the liberal side of the culture war, what is my role in society?
I was watching a video about the phenomenon of men getting more conservative - which is happening globally - and one of the men who is doing a lot of work on improving it said that men can take on roles of caretakers and househusbands because those are possible now.
To me, that rings a bit hollow because for decades women have been struggling to get out of those roles because they're not respected by society regardless of who does them. Saying that men now have the option to take them on doesn't feel like a solid argument.
They made a lot of interesting points and covered a lot of reasons why men and boys are falling behind, especially in education, but that part felt like he hadn't thought it the whole way through.
Which is why some men are becoming "anti-feminist". It's not that they're anti-women, it's that they are anti-"A movement that tells them they are the source of all problems and offers them no support". Why support a cause that openly tells you you're the bad guy just for what private parts you have while simultaneously shouting that private parts are irrelevant and shouldnt be part of the conversation.
But nah, guys are just hateful and terrible. Keep up the divide 👍
Which is why some men are becoming "anti-feminist". It's not that they're anti-women, it's that they are anti-"A movement that tells them they are the source of all problems and offers them no support".
I think the problem is more inherent in how America interprets liberalism. We don't include things like class consciousness into liberal ideology, here it's all about addressing specific systemic inequalities between certain demographics.
When you define liberalism as only fixing these inequalities then of course a large population of men aren't going to involve themselves, they don't reap any benefit, they're not experiencing any systemic abuse.
However, if we accommodate socioeconomic realities of class into the equation, things start making a bit more sense. By protecting the most disadvantaged demographic in your class, you also strengthen your own interests.
I think it's important to keep in mind exactly who people are talking about when they make general criticism about men. If you aren't participating in misogyny, then they really aren't talking about you. They just aren't vocalizing the division in class that separates us all from the reigns of power.
I think it's important to keep in mind exactly who people are talking about when they make general criticism about men. If you aren't participating in misogyny, then they really aren't talking about you.
I'm a leftist man and I hate that this phenomenon is considered acceptable. On one hand, a lot of women make criticisms of "men" without further qualification, and even make fun of anyone who says "not all men", but then they'll turn around and say "oh we didn't mean you, just misogynists". I'm on the fence about even identifying as a man (as opposed to non-binary), and my political views generally very well aligned with feminists', but nonetheless even I feel insulted, so I imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted than I do.
How hard is it for critics of toxic masculinity to just say what they actually mean instead of saying a bunch of blatantly sexist things things and then claiming they meant something else when they're called on it? It has exactly the same energy as the "Schrodinger's douchebag" phenomenon, but in that case we see it as obviously disingenuous, but with criticisms of "men", we're supposed to accept that women really don't mean what they say.
Women who do this need to fucking stop, because they're draining enthusiasm from their male allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
Edit: typo
You said so well what I have felt and expressed for so long. It's really heartbreaking to feel like you're a "lesser ally". Thank you for taking the time to write this.
Thanks to the internet, j came to understand that to successfully fight off a modern feminazi you have to out-crazy them. Say something like 'i identify as a cat, how dare you' then yowling and hissing like an angry cat until they leave you alone and in peace or something crazier.
How hard is it for critics of toxic masculinity to just say what they actually mean instead of saying a bunch of blatantly sexist things things and then claiming they meant something else when they're called on it?
Tbh, pretty difficult. At least for the vast majority of people. Putting together a comprehensive argument pertaining to socioeconomics or politics without it being full of internal contradictions is nearly impossible. Especially if your ideological framework isn't accounting for things like class consciousness.
For example, you are complaining about the reductive reasoning that leads to people make a bunch of sexist claims. However, you yourself utilized reductive thinking to come to that conclusion.
How prevalent is this attitude among feminist? Is this a majority or minority opinion, and if it is a minority opinion, how impactful is it? If it is just a few people making a lot of noise, is it fair to really judge half the global population for it? It is essentially the same "Schrodinger's douchebag" you were speaking about.
Women who do this need to fucking stop, because they're draining enthusiasm from their male allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
Is essentially the same as saying the men who are misogynist need to stop because they are draining enthusiasm from their female allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
None of these are actual solutions to problems, they don't even really identify a problem, it's just rhetoric.
However, you yourself utilized reductive thinking to come to that conclusion.
How so? I'm criticizing women who make blanket statements about men, and I was careful to make it clear that I'm taking about that subset of women, not women in general.
How prevalent is this attitude among feminist?
It's prevalent enough that I've encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. It's also prevalent enough that it's a common complaint from men.
Is essentially the same as saying the men who are misogynist need to stop because they are draining enthusiasm from their female allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
They do need to stop. But I didn't think it's an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric, and what I'm criticizing is a certain brand of feminist rhetoric, not feminism per se.
How so? I'm criticizing women who make blanket statements about men, and I was careful to make it clear that I'm taking about that subset of women, not women in general.
Idk, you said" a lot of women" and "I imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted turn I do", not exactly specific language.
prevalent enough that I've encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. It's also prevalent enough that it's a common complaint from men.
Again, anecdotal evidence. I have not experienced this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Assuming that all societal discourse is reflection of your own experience is a product of reductive reasoning.
They do need to stop.
Right, but who are you making that request to? If a woman randomly yelled out to you that misogynist men needed to be cast out of society, what assumptions would you make? How different would it be if they just specified men, not misogynist men?
My point is that actual productive discourse requires context, nuance, and patience. That even if you are talking to a person who doesn't utilize as precise language as you would like, it doesn't automatically mean that their point is moot. Nor does it really mean they were unintentionally making a claim.
If someone is making a claim like "men evil" and there is surrounding context that should lead you to believe that this is not a literal statement, like them having a boyfriend or being married to a man....isn't saying "not all men" pedantic? Or even worse, could be interpreted as you purposely misinterpreting the intent of the statement?
But I didn't think it's an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric
Couldn't your need for specified absolution be an example of internalized misanthropy? One could assume that people who do not self associate with accusations intended for misogynists, have no real need for this type of pedantic relief.
Again, my whole point that political discourse is exceedingly hard. And it's made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isn't being specific enough for their taste.
All I'm really asking for is for people to say anything at all besides just "men" when making complaints about certain men. It doesn't need to be precise, just clear enough that it's obvious that all men aren't the target of criticism. I met the same standard I'm asking for, so I don't thing I'm being hypocritical or overly reductive. I don't think it's too much to ask for people to use a qualifier like "many" when complaining about a specific subset of men.
And it’s made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isn’t being specific enough for their taste.
I'm not doing that. I'm making my point in a thread that's specifically about why feminism is often seen in a bad light. Where else could I possibly find a more appropriate venue for such a criticism?
That even if you are talking to a person who doesn’t utilize as precise language as you would like, it doesn’t automatically mean that their point is moot.
I never said it did. I'm saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.
Or even worse, could be interpreted as you purposely misinterpreting the intent of the statement?
I know better than to say "not all men". You're missing something critical: while I used myself as an example, my comment was not about me. It's about all the men who see women talk that way and come away with the impression that feminism is hostile to them just because they're men. You don't need to convince me of anything, and even if you did, convincing me would not solve the problem.
All I'm really asking for is for people to say anything at all besides just "men" when making complaints about certain men. It doesn't need to be precise, just clear enough that it's obvious that all men aren't the target of criticism
Right, but isn't it a bit far fetched to be taken literally? That there are a significant amount of women who hate every man in their life?
If I said men love sports, would you demand me pretext that with "not all men"?
I'm not doing that. I'm making my point in a thread that's specifically about why feminism is often seen in a bad light. Where else could I possibly find a more appropriate venue for such a criticism?
That was in reference to the "not all men" rhetoric.
I'm saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.
Maybe that means you may be overreacting?
I know better than to say "not all men". You're missing something critical: while I used myself as an example, my comment was not about me.
You're just validating their interpretation?
It's about all the men who see women talk that way and come away with the impression that feminism is hostile to them just because they're men.
I think people whom think that way are just finding pedantic reasons to be upset at something they already have made opinions about.
You don't need to convince me of anything, and even if you did, convincing me would not solve the problem.
Not trying to convince you of anything besides my original retort, communication about politics is hard. Just look at our conversation.
communication about politics is hard. Just look at our conversation.
It might not be so hard if everything you said wasn't dripping with condescension.
Right, but isn’t it a bit far fetched to be taken literally? That there are a significant amount of women who hate every man in their life?
It's enough for me to know that the one who brought that rhetoric into a portion of my friend group, an acquaintance of mine (I won't call her a friend) actually does mean it, or at least says she does.
The fact that she got one of the kindest people I ever met to parrot that same misandrist rhetoric hurts.
It shifted me away from self-indentifying as feminist. Nowadays, I say I'm pro-gender-equality, and embrace the values of classic feminism if someone asks.
It's enough for me to know that the one who brought that rhetoric into a portion of my friend group, an acquaintance of mine (I won't call her a friend) actually does mean it, or at least says she does.
Right, but isn't making a judgment call on feminism in general, based on a single anecdotal experience a bit dramatic?
I have tons of personal experience with racism, I don't automatically associate all white people with the actions of a few radicals.
It shifted me away from self-indentifying as feminist. Nowadays, I say I'm pro-gender-equality, and embrace the values of classic feminism if someone asks.
I think that's really damaging to the social fabric of progressive politics. I don't think that anyone who actually studies feminism holds real ill will to all men, it's just not cohesive with the ideas of mutual support feminism was founded upon.
Corrupting the social understanding of feminism has been the long term goal of conservative politics for decades. I don't think there are many people who hold true to this ideology, I just think the ones who do are having their voices amplified by conservative media. And I think the point of this amplification is to interrupt class consciousness among young men, and to make them more sensitive to this messaging.
I'm not claiming everyone who has a reaction to the problematic generalization of political language is a woman hating conservative. I just think they're unwittingly amplifying a conservative campaign aimed against protecting women's rights.
Yep because the feminist movement in the US has been corrupted to only serve women. The messaging is all women centric and the men that are feminists have a tendency to be submissive to women.
This is something I have witnessed over time. I know the origins of feminism. It started in the UK by a man and a woman because domestic violence was getting bad. Over time it has been co-opted by psychos who turned it into the bullshit it is today.
I have done a lot of work for women in my lifetime but never saw it reciprocated and that a societal thing.
They (the movement) promotes nonsense about how we (men) have all of the privileges but that’s myopic and untrue.
I sure hope it changes because that shit is fucked up.