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.
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.
Lol, are you this overdramatic every time someone disagrees with you? I think you may be a bit sensitive when encountering criticisms, which may explain the whole taking the generalization of men personally.
See, there you go again.
Ahh yes, I forgot. Anything that runs counter to your expert opinion is condescending.
Sounds like a perfectly legitimate rebuttal…
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.
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.
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.
The anecdotal experiences with her (it’s not often I have the luxury of a candid discussion with the type of person who says these things) made me view all the other cases of feminists generalizing about men in another light, and all the cases where someone pointing this out would be told that “No, actually you are the problem because…”.
Define “real ill will”. Does it actually matter what they want if they are doing real harm? Misandry has become increasingly more common in the past decade, both online and irl, and in my experience, speaking up against it paints a huge target on your back.
This right here is part of the problem.
I’m trying to discuss a serious issue that is harming men, and after three paragraphs of downplaying it as not being a problem, you turn it around and write that the real problem is me bringing it up. That’s fucked up.
Is that opinions not lacking a bit of nuance though? As I’ve said, I’ve experienced racial violence from white men, this doesn’t mean that all white men are racist, and it doesn’t mean that all racist people are violent.
I think that is dependent on your definition of “real harm”, but as far as ill will I was originally thinking of people who actually blame every single man for all of life’s difficulties.
How exactly do we define misandry, and how do we know it’s increasingly more common? Could it just be more amplified because there is a political motivation for doing so? The people who tend to “speak up against it” are people like Jordan Peterson and Tate who profit from radicalizing young men.
Right, but we haven’t established that it’s actually happening with anything besides anecdotal evidence. So far my theory is just as valid as yours, except my theory has suspects with clear motive.
I’m not trying to be dismissive, but I just haven’t been presented any evidence not supplied by personal experience, so my rebuttals are going to seem personal. I’d much rather you present evidence from a third party so we may avoid this situation.