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 aĀ 30-point differencebetween the number of women age 18ā30 who self-identify as liberal and the number of men in that demographic who do the same.
Thatās largely because young women have gottenĀ muchĀ more liberal, while young men have stayed ideologically more consistentāor, according to other analyses, become more conservativeĀ 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 vastĀ majority of AmericansĀ who identify as one or the other.) Itās not happening just here either; the political divide between the sexes is a trend thatĀ researchers are observingĀ 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 isnāt 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 āSchrodingerās douchebagā 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 donāt even really identify a problem, itās just rhetoric.
How so? Iām criticizing women who make blanket statements about men, and I was careful to make it clear that Iām taking about that subset of women, not women in general.
Itās prevalent enough that Iāve encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. Itās also prevalent enough that itās a common complaint from men.
They do need to stop. But I didnāt think itās an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric, and what Iām criticizing is a certain brand of feminist rhetoric, not feminism per se.
Idk, you said" a lot of women" and āI imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted turn I doā, not exactly specific language.
Again, anecdotal evidence. I have not experienced this, but that doesnāt mean it doesnāt 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 doesnāt utilize as precise language as you would like, it doesnāt 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 āmen evilā 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 manā¦isnāt saying ānot all menā pedantic? Or even worse, could be interpreted as you purposely misinterpreting the intent of the statement?
Couldnāt 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 itās made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isnāt being specific enough for their taste.
All Iām really asking for is for people to say anything at all besides just āmenā when making complaints about certain men. It doesnāt need to be precise, just clear enough that itās obvious that all men arenāt the target of criticism. I met the same standard Iām asking for, so I donāt thing Iām being hypocritical or overly reductive. I donāt think itās too much to ask for people to use a qualifier like āmanyā when complaining about a specific subset of men.
Iām not doing that. Iām making my point in a thread thatās 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. Iām saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.
I know better than to say ānot all menā. Youāre missing something critical: while I used myself as an example, my comment was not about me. Itās about all the men who see women talk that way and come away with the impression that feminism is hostile to them just because theyāre men. You donāt need to convince me of anything, and even if you did, convincing me would not solve the problem.
Right, but isnāt 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 ānot all menā?
That was in reference to the ānot all menā rhetoric.
Maybe that means you may be overreacting?
Youāre 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 wasnāt 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 rebuttalā¦
Itās enough for me to know that the one who brought that rhetoric into a portion of my friend group, an acquaintance of mine (I wonāt 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 Iām pro-gender-equality, and embrace the values of classic feminism if someone asks.
Right, but isnāt 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 donāt automatically associate all white people with the actions of a few radicals.
I think thatās really damaging to the social fabric of progressive politics. I donāt think that anyone who actually studies feminism holds real ill will to all men, itās 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 donāt 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.
Iām not claiming everyone who has a reaction to the problematic generalization of political language is a woman hating conservative. I just think theyāre unwittingly amplifying a conservative campaign aimed against protecting womenās rights.
The anecdotal experiences with her (itās 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 āNo, actually you are the problem becauseā¦ā.
Define āreal ill willā. 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.
Iām 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. Thatās fucked up.
Is that opinions not lacking a bit of nuance though? As Iāve said, Iāve experienced racial violence from white men, this doesnāt mean that all white men are racist, and it doesnāt mean that all racist people are violent.
I think that is dependent on your definition of āreal harmā, but as far as ill will I was originally thinking of people who actually blame every single man for all of lifeās difficulties.
How exactly do we define misandry, and how do we know itās increasingly more common? Could it just be more amplified because there is a political motivation for doing so? The people who tend to āspeak up against itā are people like Jordan Peterson and Tate who profit from radicalizing young men.
Right, but we havenāt established that itās 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.
Iām not trying to be dismissive, but I just havenāt been presented any evidence not supplied by personal experience, so my rebuttals are going to seem personal. Iād much rather you present evidence from a third party so we may avoid this situation.