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.
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 👍
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
I never said it did. I’m saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.
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.
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”?
That was in reference to the “not all men” rhetoric.
Maybe that means you may be overreacting?
You’re just validating their interpretation?
I think people whom think that way are just finding pedantic reasons to be upset at something they already have made opinions about.
Not trying to convince you of anything besides my original retort, 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.
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.