Gen Z boys and men more likely than baby boomers to believe feminism harmful, says poll
Boys and men from generation Z are more likely than older baby boomers to believe that feminism has done more harm than good, according to research that shows a “real risk of fractious division among this coming generation”.
…
On feminism, 16% of gen Z males felt it had done more harm than good. Among over-60s the figure was 13%.
The figures emerged from Ipsos polling for King’s College London’s Policy Institute and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership. The research also found that 37% of men aged 16 to 29 consider “toxic masculinity” an unhelpful phrase, roughly double the number of young women who don’t like it.
“This is a new and unusual generational pattern,” said Prof Bobby Duffy, director of the Policy Institute. “Normally, it tends to be the case that younger generations are consistently more comfortable with emerging social norms, as they grew up with these as a natural part of their lives.”
Link to study: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/masculinity-and-womens-equality-study-finds-emerging-gender-divide-in-young-peoples-attitudes
Seriously doubt this (and most polling these days). Gen Z is particularly unlikely to respond to polls or answer unknown callers in general. Until those issues in polling are solved, I take them with a grain of salt.
Looks like this was an online poll where you get paid if randomly selected:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/masculinity-and-womens-equality-study-finds-emerging-gender-divide-in-young-peoples-attitudes
For what it's worth, there's a recent Gallup survey showing a similar trend that published a couple weeks ago:
https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-gender-gap-young-men-women-dont-agree-politics-2024-1
That's an interesting thing to note. If the people more likely to approve of Tate and his message are the ones looking for easy money then that could indicate a degree of selection bias.
Your first link disagrees with the article you posted...
It sounds like the only change is you get women are more supportive of feminism than older women...
The first link is the study the article cites to. Also, I don't think there's a disagreement. The portion you cited refers specifically to "toxic masculinity," whereas the article focuses on people's reactions to "feminism." Specifically, it mentions that 16% of Gen Z males felt feminism had done more harm than good, compared to 13% among those over 60, to support its claim.
Looked at the pdf ...
For 16-29, it's 5%
So yeah, still not sure why you're using a string of different articles, but they don't agree with you main post bud...
I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore. I said the article focuses on the "feminism" portion of the study. This new portion you cited to is about "equal opportunities." Look at page 15 of the PDF where it specifically shows 16% for men aged 16-29 vs. 13% for men aged 60+ with respect to "feminism" (the point of the article).
Thank!
I saw the survey was just British respondents, but I didn't know that question was specifically about British culture...
Sorry, it's really hard to follow all the omissions and misrepresentations a survey went thru to get to the post you decided should be the main one.
But yeah, older people are going to remember what it was like 40 years ago and can see the good feminism has done.
A teenager would have know first hand knowledge how bad it was even a decade ago.
No worries! Sorry if my tone sounded harsh. Yeah, I agree with you that new articles can sometimes have tunnel vision.
and how many people will click on an ad or email saying you'll get paid to take a poll?
is that a representative portion of the population or a very niche subgroup of desperate, gullible or extremely bored people?
how/where was it advertised?
...
polls don't have to be bullshit, but they always are...
It sounds like you are sent the poll by snailmail and/or you are "recruited" that way and are then sent multiple polls over sometime.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-knowledgepanel
It's hard to get random people's emails and still be sure that the samling is good. This way seems more reliable. The few serious polls I have ever been sent by the National Bureau of Statistics has always been sent by snailmail (or technically digital snailmail which is connected to my digital ID)
do you mean e-mail? or is this some UK thing?
No, it's a free service you sign up for which delivers all the snailmail you get from governments and others to a digital mailbox instead. It's like instant snailmail.
It functions using an app or website instead of email, so you login by verifying your ID and not a password. I think the service is fairly common where I live.
You can also get some receipts via that service.
The service automatically organises all your mail into folders for each sender and separately for receipts and payments. Sender folders wouldn't work well for email because you get email for a lot of people and companies but with this service I have only collected 16 different senders over 3 years.
You can also share your digital mailbox with other people.
It's very convenient and saves time and paper. So I highly recommend checking if anything similar exists where you live.
I don't live in the UK so I don't know if they have anything like it.
so... they scan and digitize your mail for you?
No, they send it through the service. Nothing ever gets printed.
The different companies and government organisations do have to support it though.
There are a few different companies that deliver the same service, the biggest (and first?) one is apparently used by almost half of the country's population. Pretty much every service supports all the governmental organisations. Company support varies more.
One of the smaller (not small) service provider is owned by the goverment. I am thinking of switching to that one but I haven't bother yet.
Apparently at least one of the smaller providers supports scanning of all physical mail but I have never had that.
If you pay me to answer your poll, I'll answer it however you want me to.
Truthfully?
Of course not. Why would I care about telling the truth as long as I was getting paid?
You just said you'd answer it however they want you to. The way they want you to is truthfully.
LOL, this dude's been lucky enough to never read a strategically worded political poll apparently.
All polls are inherently biased in their wording. Almost no poll-makers are non-partisan, and the people most likely to complete polls are often the most biased.
Statistics baybeee! They'll tell you whatever you want if you structure your intake datum properly!
So why did women and men respond completely differently, if not because... they feel that way?
Got eem
I think you know what I meant.
What you meant is being communicated clearly. Why you think it’s some sort of conspiracy against big feminism or some shit is the confusing part.
They just want you to answer the poll legitimately.
Then why are they paying people to respond?
So they respond.
If you don't pay people then you're only going to get people who are really enthusiastic about it to respond. If you actually compensate them for their time then people will take time out of their day to talk about something they probably don't care about.
Id say to make a group of people generally averse to participating in such polls, participate.
Why do people participate in any such polls? Because they think their opinion is important and want it heard, or because they get something. Market researchers usually give test groups their products for free or at a discount. Researchers pay people to participate in studies. Most humans don’t do things without motivation.
No, I don't. You said you'd do whatever they want if they paid you, then immediately said you wouldn't do it truthfully if they paid you to answer truthfully. It's nonsensical.
So is it just the men who are lying 'to get paid', or are the women too?
I didn't say they were lying to get paid, I said if someone paid me, I would answer however they wanted me to answer. I speak for no one but myself.
Then why are boomers immune to the pollster's secret agenda?
I don't remember saying they had a secret agenda.
Good polling can be formated in a way to weed out people giving nonsense answers, it's like the first thing you learn about polling in sociology or psychology, how to extract quality data.
But they didn't tell you how they wanted you to answer, I guess...
Do you have any reason to believe zoomers' willingness to respond to polls (compared to other zoomers) is correlated with their views on feminism?
There are multiple studies showing the same thing. Denying it isn't going to change anything.
The result is not to my liking, it must be wrong.
That is NOT what they are saying. They are suggesting that the methodology may have been wrong, which is a perfectly reasonable question that EVERY person should ask themselves EVERY SINGLE TIME they hear about a study releasing results.
Yeah, the privacy-minded socially-averse demographic is a well-documented stronghold of feminist support.
I'd like to warn all the Americans against generalizing based upon their personal experiences or beliefs here. This is a UK study that sampled a UK population. These results can't necessarily be generalized to any other country, this is focused on the UK culture.
There was a recent story on NPR that addressed this. I can’t find it now but basically it said that all these studies in isolation have issues but now there appears to be a trend that transcends national boundaries and cultures.
I don't know about the NPR one, but Business Insider and the Financial Times had articles recently pulling together a bunch of surveys finding similar trends in the US and around the world respectively
The wording here is really important. We don't know how masculinity and feminism are being defined here.
Stuff that began with "woman's suffrage" are honored by people in this age group. They think it's normal women vote, have jobs, leave the house etc. Some of this stuff probably isn't even "feminism" to them but just "normal."
Remember that these guys are on social media a lot more than us and see those words misued frequently for click bait, etc.
But that misuse of the word is harming the overall cause. It's not like the need for feminism has evaporated, although it has surely evolved, and if young men think it's harmful... Even if what they think is harmful is not an accurate representation of what feminism is, they aren't going to be supporters of what it actually is if it has the name attached.
Maybe it is time for a new movement with a new name.
I suppose that could work. I do know several religious women who wouldn't identify as feminists but still believe in abortion, etc (remember that not all religious people are white supremacist Protestants). The word may have fell out of favor but honestly it's the idea that matter anyways.
If I have to take a guess, perhaps there is a base woman's suffrage that is now universal and now feminism is now used by the younger generation to be what was considered "feminist extremism" by us. Words do change, it happens.
I'm really happy you commented this. "normal" reflects norms.
Part of any generational attitude divide is the base conditions aka norms. When a change / progress is made, it sets those norms.
It's normal for my generation that people wear seat belts and don't smoke in pubs, that women have extensive varied careers and dads don't beat their kids. It wasn't for the generation before me.
It's not normal for men of my generation to talk openly and confidently about their sexuality and mental health. Yet that seems to be normal for some of the younger generations, and I envy that.
I find that the easiest way to tap into the generational norms is to listen to comedy. It often represents the edge of what is considered acceptable, because comedy does play with that edge.
It's amusing to see the pitchforks come out for comedians where they're judged for edgy content from 25 years ago and society has moved on a bit. Amusing because most of this judgement seems to happen online, and thus is a permanent record, so in 25 years time we'll have a bunch of embarrassed mid 40s people trying to explain their cruelty to an unsympathetic younger generation. "you weren't there, man! You don't understand!"
Watching from country, where even 70 years ago everyone voted(although single-candidate elections are shit), everyone worked, state provided daycare for all children and my grandma worked as loader in shop because she had to work somewhere like everyone else had to, it is bizzare what shitshow happens 4 km to the east of my country.
Some people say things are improved from 70-80 years ago. I would love to move their alternative reality immediately.
I find the internet is super good at locking people into echo chambers. For some reason, I feel especially keen on this when I was super into reddit over the last decade. I could FEEL just how a community would shift into just saying the same 10 things on repeat and any deviation would result in downvotes and messages in my inbox.
But it's not just reddit. Modern video feed algorithms and other social media just need to feed you the same stuff you've engaged with previously.
So what ends up happening is young boys only see the videos of angry purple haired stereotype liberal feminist first year college student get SLAMMED/DESTROYED by Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson or a woman who is clearly saying something sarcastic with sad sigma male music in the background and all the comments are calling for her to be put in prison or death.
And that's not to say people don't experience these types IRL and it morphs their opinions, my sister is this stereotype and is pretty fucking stupid and she will get into heated debates on Facebook about stuff she has no idea about. She'll read a headline and form a whole mindset of bullshit around it and never verify if it was just a click bait article posted to Facebook to get ad revenue with no concept of journalist integrity. It's really difficult talking to her about anything political because even though I'm pretty liberal/progressive myself, she'll just say things that are factually wrong and when I try to talk to her about it she takes it as me disagreeing and won't listen to reason or logic outside of her preconceived image of reality. Very difficult person
I often have to look at her and remind myself that people like her are a very small portion of the population and aren't really indicative of the masses.
I swear rage baiting in the social media era has to be the most lucrative grift of all time. Even being super aware of it I still fall for it from time to time.
People should really stop saying this. Every YouTube ad I get and recommendation I get is crap now. It is like someone ordered the developers to break echo chambers by making sure people don't get what they want. I am not a fucking kid, I know what I want to watch, and what I don't want to watch. Tired of the anti trans bullshit I am constantly being suggested.
i think your experience is likely anecdotal and non-representative of general trends.
scholars still indicate that algorithms play a significant role in gathering echo chambers
That's not anti-echohamber. That's the algorithm reinforcing the anti-trans propaganda that drives clicks and views on most platforms. Controversy is sensational, and anger provokes responses.
I don't know, wasn't happening about a year ago right around the same time that everyone decided that watching the video you want to watch was a bad thing.
People do this to themselves because they find comfort in the familiar, like in real life. I am not sure echo chambers are a unique to the internet.
Prior to the internet, it was people's churches, workplaces, the local pub, etc. Now it's randos with an agenda.
Yes, to an extent. But the algorithms of all the major social media sites kick this into overdrive. Seriously, how many times have you clicked on a random YouTube video about some obscure topic and then for the next week it seems like every other recommended video is about that same topic? Even if you just watched a little bit of the original video and then clicked away because it wasn't interesting. I see the same thing with the Google Feed on my Android phone - I click on one random article and then it just assumes that one topic is my new primary interest.
The internet can definitely get very echo chamber/brigade/gatekeepy when it feels like it. Sadly, lots of people have no identity of their own and attempt to latch on to one created for them. Once this happens, then they fiercely and angrily defend what the adopted, as if it were them being attacked personally.
Probably not the comment you were expecting, but, what's "sad sigma male music"? And why is it called that?
There are a few sound clips that got used a lot when the whole dumbass sigma male thing was popular
I'm so out of touch. Need to google what 'sigma male things is.
First you should learn about ligma
Although I understand the importance of feminism, I never had the impression that feminists are good at PR. Somehow, most articles written by feministsI've read love to stereotype and bash men.
Feminism is something with many internal factions. But yeah, the loudest ones aren't usually interested in genuine discourse. Some of those factions can act every bit as unhinged as 'persecuted' Christians about total non-issues, like Oscars nominations despite womankind as a whole having some very real issues to worry about.
People who say reasonable things most people can agree with rarely get their own platform.
Also, lots of people who say reasonable things have lies spread about them by misogynists and get made to look unreasonable
That too, that too. There are a lot of times something sounds absolutely nuts without context (and reasonable with it) and that is frequently used against certain folks as well.
Does anyone have a link to any of these? I keep hearing recently that somehow this has been a thing for ages, but last I checked "wanting gender equality" was the driving idea of feminism, and that a large portion of women and men agreed with this.
I'm in my early 40's and I definitely haven't seen some deluge of articles by women, who while proclaiming feminism, "stereotype and bash men."
EDIT: Seven downvotes, zero links. Pretty par for the course, guys. I'm not surprised, just disappointed.
EDIT 2: To any men, or boys, reading this who have been assaulted, there are supports for you. Feminism is as much about getting you the support you need that you don't have just as much as it is about getting women the support they need. I can't cover every country here, but if you're from Canada like me here is a government link to services for men and boys in intimate partner violence situations, and for 'general abuse' there is this link. There are people out there who care, please reach out to them.
Well, the problem is that nobody collects history of feminism articles they have read. I'm not gonna spend time on collecting them. Even if I did, you don't know how fair my collection strategy would be. I have no idea what Google query would reproduce the samples the average person encounters these things online. So, to do this fairly requires a dedication akin to writing a scientific article on this topic... Nobody has the time.
And if I presented such a survey, you'd do your own research to verify the results anyway. So, I hate to say this, but why not check the web yourself?
If you don't, I think the most feasible you could try is to summarize people's replies.
Apparently you don't have to, because 'Somehow, most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men.' So go find some of these articles.
It's not my job to verify your insulting, reductive, broad-sweeping claims. Feminists have fought for equality for both men and women, this is a fact. The missive is "... a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.[a][2][3][4][5] Feminism holds the position that societies prioritize the male point of view and that women are treated unjustly in these societies.[6] Efforts to change this include fighting against gender stereotypes and improving educational, professional, and interpersonal opportunities and outcomes for women."
How we go from that to 'most articles just stereotype and bash men'? You don't get to make a claim like ' most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men' and then literally provide zero examples. This is just Hasty Generalization and it's depressing to watch another man do this in a thread about the sudden decline in men agreeing that gender equality-seeking is somehow 'stereotyping and bashing men.'
I agree with you on what it is, though. The problem, if the problem exists as I wrote, is the PR.
PR is different from what feminism is.
I guess what I wrote is too nuanced to understand in the first sight. I advice you to temporarily assume I'm correct, so that you can calm down and see what I really mean here.
Not really, you said:
And, to this point, still haven't posted a single one.
To quote a philosopher from my youth:
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Can you explain to me how you interpret this one, then? I'm pretty sure it's just misunderstanding.
I don't agree with you, because you said the 'issue with feminisms PR' is posts on twitter, reddit, and 'most articles I read'. You didn't respond with any of the articles, and people say all sorts of things on twitter and reddit. They don't encompass the entirety of a group like people who want gender equality.
Here's an example of how feminism helps boys and girls, and the positive impacts of it.
That's two articles I've posted here, feel free to post your myriad misandrist feminist articles.
I mean, how many URLs do you want from me?
Edit: you ignored my question btw...
Edit 2: You don't understand my point. The only thing I can do is to tell you to read my past comments carefully at this stage.
I mean, one? You've literally posted zero. In the time it took you to reply to me a half dozen times you could go look up articles you vaguely remember that are '... written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men', take some, and then post them.
Or (see above)
I think you misunderstood what I mean by "most articles". I mean the articles that reached me. That's different from the articles that's online.
If you just want one, there was already someone who posted two for you. Can you explain to me the point of me adding one?
Go take a look at the UN's Twitter account on National Men's day. Or I remember articles about how 1 in 4 homeless are women and it's a tragedy for women. Honestly if you have seen articles like these before you're either not reading many of them or you aren't noticing what they are saying.
So an article, and some twitter comments. That's not exactly "...most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men."
How dishonest can you be? You specifically asked for a link to ANY of these. You got a response that gave you some examples, and you respond:
You didn't ask for most of the articles and it isn't reasonable to expect someone to provide you 50-100 links.
If you have a genuine disagreement with what they provided you should present that, but as it stands you're being terribly dishonest and disingenuous.
What examples? The guy said look on twitter on National Men's Day, and a reference to an article (without linking to it) for a hand sweeping 'Most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men.'
(EDIT: To be specific, here's EXACTLY what I said:
No-one here has linked to any deluge of 'feminist' articles that 'love to stereotype and bash men'.
What is the actual, legitimate complaint against this:
The ones you were given.
No, they didn't. They told you to look at a specific account on a specific day.
Yes, which you could have easily googled if you wanted to read it.
Regardless you asked for examples, and then upon receiving them stated "that's most?". No amount of examples was going to be sufficient, your response would have been the same regardless. Your original question was dishonest in that you weren't interested in the answer.
Edit: As for your definition, I don't think anyone opposed that definition. Feminism is a large banner under which a lot of groups identify. So your extremely generic definition doesn't encapsulate all persons or groups.
Not the OP, and still not any links. 'Go take a look at the UN’s Twitter account on National Men’s day.' isn't an article written by a feminist. 'Or I remember articles about how 1 in 4 homeless are women and it’s a tragedy for women.' that's both not a link, and doesn't 'stereotype and bash men.'
Still waiting for a link of an 'article written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men.' Feel free to post one.
OP had mentioned feminists being bad at PR and then mentioned negative articles.
They supported that with the Twitter content being bad PR and an article they remembered seeing. OP also responded to you saying that they didn't maintain a log of all feminism articles they had read. Apparently you expected them to source links to all the articles they've read in the past.
No one's going to do that, if they do supply links it would only be one or two, at which point you'd have made your "that's most" comment, which was the whole point. You're a dishonest interlocutor.
Not 'negative articles', he said 'most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men' (emphasis mine.)
Again not an, most. That is dishonest and disingenuous. Either 'you're' looking specifically for feminist articles negative towards men, or 'you're' being dishonest.
Caitlin Moran even wrote a damn novel on issues and challenges facing straight, white, able-bodied men that need to be solved. If feminist PR sucks, you're reading right-wing articles/twitter posts/apparently reddit posts according to another post of theirs.
(I put 'you're' like that because it's a royal 'all of us/you' and also you're responding to me within minutes of him, so it feels like the same person I'm responding to.)
Yes, the articles were negative in their views.
At this point you're (2nd person, singular) either stupid or spectacularly dishonest. You keep referencing most, so apparently he needed to cite, with links, 50.1% of all articles by feminists or you'd bring your same criticism. Guess what, "most" could be true and he could only cite a single article. They are not mutually exclusive. (I've never accepted or rejected the most claim). Maybe the majority actually are negative, maybe he's only read three articles by feminists and at least two were negative, maybe he only reads negative articles, and yet you still attack most. Rather dishonest.
Umm...and? One person wrote a novel? A novel isn't an article and one isn't most! Obviously OP is right because you didn't even give links to most articles. See how easy it is to be a dishonest interlocutor and not meet people where they're at?
That actually doesn't follow at all. Feminist PR could suck and none of those things be true. Mainstream media, like "most" media, likes to present items that will drive clicks and viewership. People with preposterous views have an easier time getting traction because their comments will drive interaction. So the majority of feminists could be levelheaded and pragmatic, but the minority with outlandish takes on issues will likely get more press attention.
We're on day two of not a single link from him or you. I'm done with this, if you want to keep screaming to the winds that 'most feminist articles are...' then prove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
Especially the history section will be relevant to you.
When people complain about feminism they generally complain about forth wave or maybe third wave feminism. When people point out all the good feminism they usually mean first and second wave feminism.
Edit: chances are you'll have to watch with subtitles (it's in German), but here's a documentary (with commentary, because the documentary fucked up hard in some parts) about feminism: https://youtube.com/watch?v=I-OFCy-NrU4
And here is an interview with one of the subjects of the documentary who felt wrongly presented (rightfully so): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tvPExRR_GRg
That's selection bias. Reasonable feminists usually don't crow about being feminists, probably because they don't want to be judged based on stereotypes about feminists.
... just curious, but are you perusing a lot of feminist literature?
I know I'm not.
But what I do see are the articles that the right wing has decided are rage inducing and fair game and that they plaster everywhere to try to influence people.
So ... maybe worth some thought.
this is the correct analysis. true feminists are fine at PR, but unfortunately grifters who profit off of right wing ideas being spread have a vested interest in making feminists appear evil in order to maintain the status quo.
No. And I don't think I've encountered these articles on right-wing webpages when I vistas there out of curiosity. I instead think some were rants on Reddit written by feminists (while I can't recall how I encountered others). So maybe a selection bias on my side, or the loudest feminists get more upvotes even outside rightwing subreddits.
Not everyone claiming to be a feminist is actually one. There's a lot of misandrists that use the feminist label to spread their bullshit. But feminism in of itself is meant to be an egalitarian movement, it's about equality. It was never meant to bash men or make them unequal to women.
I do agree however that many feminists often look away when these type of people spew their garbage out into the public. I think especially women need to make sure to tell these people where to stuff it and that their shit isn't welcomed.
A good chunk of the "feminist" who are guilty of it are also TERFs. To them, trans women are just creepy men, and trans men are women trying to cheat into getting male privilege. They started from a place of hating men, and that's where they went.
Feminism as a whole has also been trying very hard to kick them out of the club. That's difficult when there's no central authority figure who dictates what is and is not feminism, but TERFs don't last long at most of the meetups.
That has nothing to do with feminists as a whole, it's just how the media works. You don't get clicks without controversy. The vast majority of feminists I've known irl are chill people.
Feminism has a branding problem. The name itself makes it sound like it's about putting women above men. People who don't know better—the kind of people who are disproportionately young—will judge feminism based on the name.
Calling it feminism made sense when everyone "knew" women were generally inferior to men, but since gender equality has become the mainstream view, the name had lost the context that made it work. Combined with the scope creep of feminism that causes it to encompass issues like disability rights and economic inequality, I think feminism is becoming indistinguishable from leftism.
There might be a reason for that. Where on the right are you hearing strong advocacy for women's rights and equality?
People in politics are painting infrastructure bills as progressive these days, so feminism is one of those leftisms just like repaving roads and fixing bridges that are years out of spec. The overton window must be the window on a plane because it wont stop moving.
Believibg in the power of cooperation is already communism in some circles...
Wait a sec. Doesn't it make libertarians communists in their eyes?
Feminism is leftism and leftism is feminism. It's always been that way because it's all about the same issue, equality. Women's rights, civil rights, trans rights, they're all fighting for the same thing. One of my favorite quotes comes from Fannie Lou Hamer, civil rights and women's rights activist, "Nobody's free until everybody's free"
This is like a main tenet of existentialisme, at least as it's described by Sartre and De Beauvoir. To anyone reading, check out the very easy reads of Ethics of Ambiguity by De Beauvoir and Existentialism is a Humanism by Sartre.
I think it's important to remember that feminism is as much a political movement as a philosophical one. How things should be versus how to fix things are different.
"the scope creep of feminism that causes it to encompass issues like disability rights and economic inequality, I think feminism is becoming indistinguishable from leftism."
Why do you say that like it's a bad thing?
Because not everyone is a leftist.
If movement A wants to achieve B and C, then people who don't want C won't support movement A (probably), even if they want B. If A just wants B, then everyone that wants B will support A, which makes B way more likely to happen at the cost of C being slightly less likely.
Isn't this the same rationale for 'All Lives Matter'? You want to remove the history of oppression and pretend we're equal, despite trump and tate and the incels. Feminism was and is necessary, the US is removing womens right to bodily autonomy and you're pretending it's all over.
Sorry, did you respond to the wrong comment?
Nope. Feminism is no more about putting women above men than BLM is about putting black lives above others. By removing women from the name you remove the history of oppression, a history that should'nt be hushed uo, and in a world with trump and tate feminism is sorely needed.
So why are you "responding" to a bunch of things I never said or even remotely suggested?
So "humanism"?
edit: Replacing what I said, still trying to figure out the best way to word this sorry yall.
The branding problem was intentionally created. Leaders in the manosphere profit off of young men subscribing to misogynistic beliefs. While movement PR is important, I would not be so quick to assign blame because this this has been an attack decades in the making, bolstered by social media algorithms.
The only conclusion I can take from your screed is that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I'm not defending assholes like Peterson and Tate in any way.
Rereading what I wrote and I get why you thought I misunderstood. I edited my original response as well. Sorry about that.
Well the propaganda is working. Surprise, surprise, distribute unfiltered hate speech and people will start believing in this hate speech.
Propoganda, hate speech - interesting as these labels are equally applied by both sides to describe the other.
Eh? I see propaganda accusations all the time, with widely varying degrees of veracity or baselessness, but I don't think I've ever actually seen the left accused specifically of hate speech. I will admit that I don't tend to frequent right-leaning opinion outlets, and so may be simply ignorant, but can you provide an example?
Hate speech per UN definition - any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.
Through the above - there is a lot of pejorative and discriminatory language levelled by both left and right wing posters on social media. Lemmy is rife with it to the point that I don't feel comfortable in some groups. The social media company formerly known as Twitter is similarly awkward but from another angle. However, it takes multiple viewpoints to form ones own.
More broadly and as a very specific example, I think it might help if you do a careful examination of the way that many on the left describe what is occurring in the gaza strip, specifically attributing qualities to the entirety of Israel and Judaism.
ETA Fwiw I consider myself left of centre and I live in a country whose baseline is more left wing than the US.
It could be a difference in our countries, in the US we learn a LOT about the holocaust and Nazism, WW2, etc, so most people I know politically aware will go out of their way to assure you that they are not speaking about Judaism in general. Who are these 'many on the left' being antisemitic? I simply haven't seen that, not any more than it might have occurred before this current war, which was rare. It doesn't seem difficult for most to separate the actions of a violent organization like the IDF and right-wing Israeli officials from Jewish people in general.
i guess this is where the differences in "common" knowledge comes in...
There are multiple countries where left wing politics is associated with anti semitism. It might seem weird but it's true. Start with the UK - there is a Wikipedia page on it. I'm not going to share a heap of further context as I'd invite you to read and review yourself and come to your own conclusions, much as I have.
I would also encourage spending as much time reading accounts of world war I, and the conditions before and after the war, as you have on wwii. It helps to understand what left and right wing have meant over long periods of time, and the clumping / allegiances that comes with these alignments, which persist into the modern world without really being visible under the glossy label.
Basically modern "kill all white men" feminism.
Interesting you say? :D Those are not "labels applied to sides". They are words with specific meaning describing actions. Your wording immediately is trying to turn this into an identitarian issue. And it cause isn't even people, it's systems. Like algorithms or business practices that have figured out that creating controversy increases profit. Or propagandists who realized that it's useful to distract from actual policy and real issues, so they get funding.
I can't say I'm surprised that people like Andrew Tate, Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro have gained quite the social media following. Society has failed a lot of young men, and the oligarchy that controls our world has a lot to answer for.
Men are disproportionately affected by a lot of the socioeconomic issues currently plaguing the Western world because despite decades of progress towards creating an egalitarian society, men are the ones who are negatively impacted if they cannot provide. Look at the US and how judicial decisions on child custody and alimony are heavily favoured towards women as a very good example of this.
And before you dispute me on this notion, can you offer any other explanation for why the biggest role model for a lot of teenage boys is some bloomy rind dick cheese who looks like a spitting image of the Stonks meme guy?
Because their content is controversial, thus driving engagement, thus being favored by the algorithms of many social media platforms. I still get recommended some of their garbage on YouTube, despite never having watched anything remotely similar to it.
Younger people tend to be easier to influence, and they often lack the experience to smell bullshit. And the more people hear something, the more likely they are to believe it.
I can. Their content sucks. It's whiny and boring and utterly tasteless. Tate's an absolute skeez. Crowder has zero swag. Peterson is an incoherent puddle. And Ben Shapiro... well... just come on, wtf is this?
Because that's half of what YouTube / Twitch / Netflix / et al serves up anymore. These people are the dregs of modern media, but they and their promoters are everywhere. Its the same way that AM radio is the endless cesspool of senile racists whining about scary foreigners and Daytime TV is washed up fashion models pretending to have the secret to fame, fortune, and eternal youth. The lowest common denominator of mass media is overflowing with gross, juvenile bullshit.
And when you simply cannot escape the morass of filth, that's going to affect you one way or another.
Childless men don't have a stake in child custody, visitation, child support or spousal support so that can't be it.
I used to be sympathetic to these types of arguments until I actually gained relevant experience with the formula that gets used to calculate family support.
I have to assume you're talking about Andrew Tate. Pretty much everyone who ever pushed cryptocurrency as part of their social media sponsorships I assume is or was on the Russian take. We experienced the same exact type of messaging in 2014-2015 about how unfair life is for men when women are by default responsible for raising and providing for kids if Dad skips town or otherwise leaves the picture.
Women are more poor than men. So, what do you mean by this?
What does that even mean?
Men are more likely than women to get custody when they ask for it. Men pay more alimony on average because they are more likely to have and earn more money.
Single mothers (not single fathers) are one of the poorest groups worldwide. That goes for the USA as well.
It seems like you really bought into the angry YouTubers.
There are many things.
For instance, I am working legally in the US, this is my third year, I had to run away feom my home in Mexico because od the narco, I didn't mess with anybody, I hardly got out just to get groceries and my job. Some narco srill burned my house.
I know 2 women with the same issue, but they came here illegally. One of them works and the other didn't. But both, in a year, are already residents. I for instance pay my taxes do everything legal and i got denied of any form of aid to change my status.
And for instance, I helped at one place where they help single mothers... all have the kids and some.od yhem still do drugs. I doubt what you say about the custody.
Men are more homeless. The median wage difference between men and women 18-34 is not significant.
Going to the first point, societally, generally women have more to fall back on. Of course it would be great if everyone can choose to work or not, but generally in a straight relationship, the only one with a real choice is the woman. Also, obviously this is controversial to say, but semi-jokingly a lot of men see being able to sell sex/nudes as a privilege for relatively easy money.
Source?
Does that include the single fathers in prison?
Selection bias, as homeless women have twice the mortality of their male peers. There are more living homeless men entirely because there are more dead homeless women.
More of what?
Fathers who fight for custody typically get it. Even 30 years ago, 94% of fathers who sought custody got sole or joint custody. Abusive fathers are especially successful. Seventy-two percent win their custody cases. In one study where both parents fought hard for custody, mothers were awarded custody just 7% of the time.
What's more damning is that In 91% of custody cases, the parents mutually decide to give custody to the mother. Fathers fight for custody in court in less than 4% of divorces. Twenty-seven percent of fathers completely abandon their children after divorce.
Bizarrely, yes. In the rare instances when fathers with convictions attempt to win custody, they have a better than average chance of obtaining it.
A great deal of this boils down to with the gender pay gap which favors men at virtually every income tier and along every sociological fault line. Since primary guardianship is officially a gender neutral dispute, the individual with the larger income enjoys disproportionate advantage in winning custody.
You can't honestly believe this. The mortality rate is awful but it does not sufficiently explain why there are more men than women unhoused.
Edit: Turns out their own source debunks their claim on the first page. You can't make this stuff up.
I don't have to believe it. I've got the data to prove it.
When the mortality rate among women is twice that of men, the only way you get an equivalent number of homeless women is if the deficit is made up by women moving into the homeless population faster than men.
So which is it? Are men predominant because women die faster? Or are they not predominant because more women are becoming homeless?
Ok, this is hilarious! I actually dug into your data, but I didn't have to dig that deep to find you are COMPLETELY misreading it. Just read this from the FIRST PAGE:
So wait, your data which you used to dismiss the male homelessness issue by provocatively suggesting women were dying in the hundreds of thousands, actually shows the exact OPPOSITE?
I mean, I am not a statistician, I will be humble for a moment and accept the possibility that maybe I have misread something here, because this level of irony is hard for me to believe. I get things wrong sometimes! Where am I wrong? Point to me where in the data you can get away with saying that female homeless mortality is double. Make it make sense.
This seems to happen every time an issue affecting boys and men is discussed. No matter what the data says, the welfare of men is dismissed hastily. It's like people think this is a zero sum game or something.
For the most part these are great points. No arguments, save for that you mentioned women earn less than men - not disagreeing with you, but my understanding is that where men and women are doing the same job the wage gap is almost nonexistent.
Factors like the glass ceiling and draconian laws about taking time off work to parent - and who can do this - contribute as well.
Also men tend to gravitate towards higher paying, and more dangerous, jobs. Women generally want jobs that will help others and give their life meaning, whereas many men will kill vows in a manure pit with their teeth for 8 hours a day if you pay them enough.
Of course things are changing - there Fd women working in the trades, for example.
So yes, the gap exists but the "why" of it and the solutions are complex and nuanced. I felt hat because of this it detracts from otherwie well made arguments.
Yeah that is there but the playing fiekd
They're still a statistical rounding error. Trades are almost 100% male (in the US anyway). And in my experience as a tradie, if there's a woman technically on the crew, she's probably the one walking around with a clipboard, not the one fixing or building or whatever. Safety officer, environmental engineer, etc. Supporting and supervisory roles.
The gender pay gap is very real. Women end up with holes in their CVs due to pregnancy, child birth and then child care. That holes means lower pay. Lower pay means more likely to do child care. Society pushed childcare more on to women. If child care costs more than they earn, of course they aren't going to work. Making the CV hole worse. It's a negative feedback loop kicked off by having kids.
Edit: down voting? It's pretty normal reasoning given. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/07/uk-women-work-childcare-pwc-budget
Yep. Tovuhed on this. Many countries allow both parents equal time off to take care of kids. Which is the better solution here.
It helps, but we need society to support and celebrate when men do this. I know one dad who did this. One. I know a lot of other dads. We did the math with our first kid with nursery and my wife's then pay. There was next to nothing in it. But we went for nursery anyway so my wife's CV gap was short. Now it's paid off and she is not part of the statistics. She also works somewhere very progressive, with lots of women in upper management. That helps a lot too.
Cherry picking, cherry picking and, finally, cherry picking.
Nice.
It’s easy to get a following by fostering fear and hate. Literally just blame and vilify a group and blame them for all the problems your target audience has.
I do agree males are disproportionately impacted by certain things… look at prison, suicide, etc. but I also think feminism would correct that. I’m a truly equal society, men wouldn’t bare the brute of the stress of financial support, for example. I also think in a truly equal society, the notion that men chase women goes away. People are just out there trying to find love and/or happiness.
If you have that, a lot of the symptoms you mentioned, where men are disproportionately affected go away.
Maybe if feminism paid more than lip service to men's problems, I would believe that. Instead, whenever feminists are confronted with men's problems, the response is usually along the lines of "men should sort that out themselves".
Feminism is fundamentally not concerned with equity. It's concerned with advancing the status of women. Historically, since women have been so discriminated against, that's been functionally the same thing. But that's less true now.
The double edged sword with how custody is awarded is that if men are the primary breadwinner of the household, and the mother is the primary caregiver, a judge will say "okay, you spend a lot of time away from the family as it is earning money to support them, then you won't mind if we mandate that you aren't legally allowed to see your kids for 75% of the month."
Absolute nonsense. But good job exemplifying the segment the article is talking about by regurgitating that imaginary talking point.
Found the boomer?
It's crazy how hard it is for some people to simply recognize that men have their own unique issues not being addressed by feminism.
I wonder how this reconciles against the other recent report of Gen Z more likely to be LGBTQ than Republican. On one hand, Republicans are the most vocal enemy of feminism and the LGBTQ+ community, but on the other hand, my anecdotal experience dealing with Gen Z dudes are that they're fucking idiot reactionaries who think "feminism" is "blue haired land whale blaming all her problems on men". I'm not here to paint any group of people with a broad brush, but again, speaking anecdotally, it seems that Gen X parents are neglectful as shit and their Gen Z sons are desperately looking for father figures elsewhere.
One thing that may deform statistics is the interpretation of feminism.
Personally i prefer equality and I recognize that the majority of people mean equality when talking about feminism.
In almost all ideological groups theres a section of extremist that listen to the same name. Extremist often yell the loudest and say stupid, hatefull memeable stuff. The post of extremist make ripe content for opposers of the general movement to show how stupid/bad an entire group is.
You can be an otherwise very rational person if the only example of feminism you know is jk rowling then it influenced the decision.
On why its different between generation. In general i observe gen-x and boomers care alot about official definition and proper terminology which leads to narrower thinking but also less Confusion on how to perceive in unity.
Millenials and gen z tend to play More creative with language which can allow much more nuanced communication and fresh perspectives but causes different word meanings within different social groups. Misunderstanding outside of it.
Yep - this is why I consider myself pro gender-equality and endorse classic feminism, but am against "post-modern" feminism. I've met plenty of women irl and many more online who under that banner (yes, anecdotal, I know, but we all form opinions based on our experiences ultimately) treat men like shit, unapologetically call "all men evil" etc. etc.
When this comes up I describe myself as egalitarian.
Leaves a lot of the baggage behind, IMO.
I think these things are very related.
I'm queer and trans, and I'm not so picky about the demographic that I hang out with. I've met a lot of dudes who wanted to act their best in good faith, but received such vitriol for even showing up in conversations that they stopped bothering. Even as a transgender person, I don't tend to engage much with community because there's so little room for meaningful dialogue that isn't totally prescribed. There seem to be a lot of rules on how you should and shouldn't be. I understand that propping up the voices of those who have historically been ignored is an important thing, but there is something to be said about the fact that men and boys are often actively shunned from specific groups. If you're frequently told that you have no place in community, you're probably going to model a different community around that rejection.
Now what I actually think is happening is that tools of mass manipulation like the more centralized social media platforms are weaponizing the language of social justice to create division and escalation. All media platforms are quite effective at serving the ruling class, but social media is particularly insidious in that it pretends to be real life and the exposure is virtually constant.
https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42
I think the venn diagram between gen z members who are republicans and those who believe feminism is harmful is just one circle inside of another.
Older people have had more history with the term, seeing people burn their bras in the 70s for example. My uncle, around 60, said he loved feminism because it was great when women starting not wearing bras and dressing in more revealing things haha.
I can't imagine being born after Youtube and Facebook were created. Propaganda through media is incessant and young people have been subjected to the most potent forms for their entire lives.
The problem is all the blue haired land whales blaming all their problems. On mend a,qnd calling it feminism. ² The idea that feminism is actu. &ally a nuanced field of study / advocacy that aims to understand and dismantle harmful patriarchal norms and ideologies.
That doesn't sell well online. Add in the name of the game "feminism" and it's enemy " patriarchy" and it's pretty easy to see how anyone that's never engaged with actual feminism - regardless of their gender, can think it's just "grrrrls good boys bad".
While I do think the blue haired land whales and the gravy seal anti feminists would agree on what feminism is they're both probably going to be wrong. And I don't think this is a no true Scotsman type thing, and at the same time in a sense feminism "is" what the land whales and neck beard say it is, which is to say that the whole thing has gotten very muddied by polarized andsimplistiv viewpoints that have muddied the fact that feminism has a serious fucking pr problem.
Hey, my guy, there's a backspace key and an edit button. Just saying.
Maybe he wrote it on a typewriter?
I'm glad someone noticed my first stroke. I feel so seen.
I think a big part of the problem is that, among younger Americans especially, both men and women that refer to themselves as feminists conflate it with benevolent sexism, and not the same sets of social rules for both genders.
Benevolent sexism is a tough concept to swallow for men. It means respecting and practicing the old mores men practiced with women, with none of the toxic expectations. Things like expectations of men being the breadwinners, running to get the door, etc aren't compatible with a desire for equality, especially when correctly rejecting the trade-offs those perks used to be tied to.
The first waves of feminism cleared the way, but in having done so, the newest generation of women are asking "but why don't I get these cool perks I heard about" and men are answering "because we no longer get the social power that facilitated that cool stuff."
Everything is trade offs.
Some years ago I was waiting for a bus, there were four of us and as the bus arrived we lined up behind the man who had got to the bus stop first. He looked behind him as the bus arrived, let out a large sigh, rolled his eyes and moved to the side, motioning for us women to board first. Not wanting to slow the bus down, i boarded silently whilst he muttered 'move it' at us. Was that you?
The male propensity to play the victim is quite imaginitive.
In my experience, the human propensity to play the victim is quite imaginative.
Men were never required to "hold doors open" or "be the breadwinner". They only did those things during a certain time in a certain place and for a particular reason: to make women like them. You don't have to do that now and it has nothing to do with "feminism".
Women worked for money and opened doors for thousands of years. This may be surprising to some people, but in many places women used to manage all the money because they were going to town and selling products every market day.
If you're a male farmer, you are basically interchangeable with any other farmer. Women had to be good at math and negotiating. "Women be shopping" as they say.
What a shit take on the past.
Young men/boys thinking we don’t need feminism reminds me of healthy people thinking we don’t need vaccines. Just because we’ve improved the world and made a problem less of a thing doesn’t mean we can now forget about it and move on.
There is a lot more to it than that, as evidenced by all the replies already.
It never ceases to amaze me that in almost every comment section there is a highly upvoted comment by someone who clearly didn't read the article. Or maybe they read the article and are I explicably talking about something else completely.
Even reading just the headline, I don't get how one would talk about not needing feminism anymore. It's about them thinking it has done more harm than good and/or it's now harder to be a man.
I am talking about the similarities in how these two good things became something bad to be rejected because they are actually harmful. Became that way to a certain wacky group, at least.
To be fair—they’re asking people to judge the effect of a movement, but only one of the groups remembers what things were like before the movement. It could just be that more gen Zers honestly don’t know the answer.
Ah yes, confused men want to uphold the tradition of mysoginy, misandry, the very patriarchy that subverts men to be stupid soldiers and labourers, sacrificing emotional intelligence and their individuality to become stereotypical puppets of the powers that be.
MGTOW energy Indeed. Just the kind of weakness a grifter like Tate loves to exploit.
Dumbasses.
Most of Gen Z is children.
95 to 2010, so yeah - mostly.
Chalk it up to exploitation of boys to become exploitable males.
I was born in 95, I'm 28 not a child by any stretch of the imagination..... although if I am considered a child can I quit this whole 40 hours of work every week to barely get by shit?
97 to 2012 actually.
Guess WikiPedia eyeballed it then, but I guess that's to be expected.
The problem is the so called Third Wave Feminism, which is far too often just middle and high-middle class women trying to obtain special benefits for themselves by claimimg the whole group they were born into "is a victim" (even though they themselves were born into and are amongst the most priviledged 1% of people in the World) and hence "must be compensated" in some way which is discriminatory against all those not in the group and which is invariably in a form that is mainly usefull for middle class and high-middle class well educated women in well-of western nations. Hence things like Quotas or the practice of Benevolent Mascism in power situations such as in Court (for example the whole gender-discriminatory idea that the Mother should be prefered as the custodian of children when a couple separates).
This is generally neither fair, nor equal (you know, the whole judge and treat people based on what they do, not based on the genetics they were born with) and even has zero positive effects for the vast majority of women out there who aren't the well-of scions of well-of families in well-of countries: you get loud noises about the "glass ceiling" that stops well-of women from maximizing their income from being in the upper classes, not about the 3000% difference in incomes between those above said glass chieling such as corporate CEOs and the average worker, which includes most women.
This shit isn't Leftwing, it's just a "make believe leftie" facet of "Greed is good" Neoliberal Capitalism: personal upside maximization hidden behind "the group" so that it doesn't just look like naked greed, hence why you see this mostly supported by Liberals in Anglo-Saxon nations, not traditional Lefties.
Previous generations of Feminism (and those who still now fight for Equality and Fairness) are the ones who are deserving of tremendous respect and support, not these pampered, priviledged, greedy people who happen to have been born with 2 X cromossomes and who want to maintain the discriminatory and prejudiced treatment of people base on the genetics they were born with, as long as theirs is the group getting benefited by that discrimination.
It's thus not surprising that amongst those who are not in the groups that benefits form the discrimination these people defend and are exposed to this highly moralistic variance of greed is good, grow negative about it. The thing is made even worse in the US because Politics ther is entirelly in the Moral space (people have no genuine choice on how the Economics is managed in that country since both sides of the Power Duopoly do the same in that field) so you end up with equally pro-descrimination groups on the other side, who just differ in who gets favoured by said discriminationand face off against these, muddling the whole "equality" domain.
It's pretty hard to find a space if you're genuinelly pro-Equality and pro-Fairness and not be confuse by either side of selfish fucker as being in the other side of selfish fuckers.
This became especially obvious in my country when we were passing the gender self-determination law. Really helped me differentiate between feminists who actually wanted equality, regardless of background or biology, and narcissists who saw a discriminated group trying to get acceptance as a threat to their own position in the hierarchy, who would later got angry and offended when we called them TERFs for repeating far right talking points. Thankfully the later are overrepresented online and aren't so prevalent in society as a whole.
Just remembered article about working in foreign company(I think it was on habr and I think it was in Intel, but it could be anything else) where they had something along the lines "diversity list" which is list of race of employee. So america's answer to racism is more racism.
I think brits support it the least. It is more North-American thing.
I've lived in Britain and I suspect it's actually worse over there because the dominant culture of the middle and upper classes in that country is what in most other nations would be seen as fakeness and hypocrisy, the higher the class the worse it gets.
People from the outside aren't really aware of what's behind "posh" and "gentleman": let's just say that not only is it entirelly fake (it's all about saying what others expect and doing so in a certain style), but the dominant interpersonal relationship style in the upper class can only be described as slimy two-faced adversarial, which isn't at all healthy IMHO.
Certainly a lot of what I wrote is based on observations and discussions I had in Britain and British discussion forums, all informed by my experience before that living in The Netherlands, a far more equalitarian country with a culture which is significantly different (to illustrate it, let me just point out that 2 decades ago Pim Furtijn - the leader of the largest far right party in The Netherlands - was very openly gay. In which other country in the World would the far-right thinking not include aversion to homosexuality??!)
Replace "woman" with "Black" in this rant and it sounds just like someone trying to make reparations look bad by strawmanning its supporters.
I agree that neoliberal capitalism has (largely successfully) used feminism as a way to distract from society's real problems. But this ain't it.
You can just as easilly replace "women" there with "the arian race" and suddenly find out that my post is a critique of the social side of Nazism that would apply even before they started exterminating people when all their messaging was about "protecting the arian race".
If you're deeming people worthy/victims or unworthy/aggressors merelly on their genetics rather than on their actions and what they support, you're part of the problem because you're being prejudiced rather than fair - by judging people on externally visible genetic differences you end up de facto protecting bad people when they have the genetics of those you deem victims and treating badly good people when they have the genetics of those you deem agressors.
It doesn't matter what "genetically defined group" you put in there because there will always be good people and bad people amongst them and if they can the bad people in that group will do exactly what the bad people amongst Feminists are doing: use the goodwill of others who see the world in an oversimplified prejudiced way, to maximize personal upsides, and along with them drag many from the neutral middle who see an opportunity for personal gain, so they gladly jump on the bandwagon.
(In simple terms, every group of people defined by things that have nothing to do with their actual actions, contains assholes and lots of people who will easilly turn into one if they come out better of by doing so).
That's why one fights actual actions of unequal and/or unfair treatmente and do so no matter the "genetic makeup" of the victim and the aggressor - it's the acts themselves that are wrong, not the chromossomes with externally visible expressions of the victims and aggressors.
I am seriously disgusted that there are more upvotes than downvotes to your comment.
Why? I see comments claiming the commenter to be hateful but nothing addressing what he actually said.
Wow, you are knee deep in the manosphere rhetoric. Hate speech online does work.
You've just proven the last paragraph of my post.
Thank you.
Get off the internet bro, you're suffering from acute brain rot
Opinion Gatekeeping.
Typical ...
Is this just a cyclical thing that will swing back and forth like a pendulum? Feminism surges for a few years, following a big sort of zeitgeist-defining event (#metoo being the recent one), but then it sort of just gets taken for granted, attention lags, and a quasi counter-feminist movement emerges that pushes back against that. Have we had this happen before in the past few decades? I feel like recently at least I've seen a lot more men online bemoan the fact that nobody is paying attention to their inner-world. It's not even men bringing up or attacking feminism as a problem, I feel like more of the arguments are careful not to go there, more that society in general just doesn't care that much about men's emotional world. I would assume that along with that, you'd have some men pushing back against feminism or as seeing it as having over-extended itself.
As a man I feel like the main people to blame for this are men both now and historically. So many of us were raised with this macho bullshit hold-it-all-in thing and our parents' generation were even worse about it and theirs even worse still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlash:_The_Undeclared_War_Against_American_Women
This is something feminists already wrote about since the 90's
Yeah I saw this over on Mastodon, and there were a lot of stats folks questioning the methodology. I'm not qualified to do that, but my sons are Zoomers as are all their male friends, and they are all good feminists. This is in NW Europe, so might be a bit biased.
To be honest I don't think parents is a good source of their children's beliefs usually.
Fair enough point in general, sure.
We're talking 16% vs 13%. Still a small minority. Based on what groups of people these are concentrated in, and what group you run in, it's completely plausible you don't know any of them well enough to understand this is how they feel.
Worse, depending on sample size, this might not even be a meaningful difference.
I very specifically first thought that we should have a look at the methodology to see what is going on here.
So it seems it’s largely ethnic minorities in this age bracket that support this view?
What’s the bet that correlates strongly with religiousness.
Well, in the old days US women couldn't even vote. Feminism was thus more important than it is today. It's not really surprising to me that opponents increase by 3% points as women win more equality.
I'm betting that 16% suffers with toxic masculinity.
This is exactly why it's not a helpful term. We are all suffering from it, all genders alike but in different ways.
The phenomenon referred to as toxic masculinity is a trait of society, not individuals. It's the sum of all destructive societal expectations placed on men, the whole "don't cry, repress your feelings, you must be the strong one" thing. It causes men to be emotionally repressed and potentially violent or self-destructive, and also causes society to associate leadership and strength with men alone, contributing to a glass ceiling effect for other genders.
A lot of people hear "toxic masculinity" and associate it with "men bad", that's why it's not as constructive a term as it could be.
"A lot of people hear "toxic masculinity" and associate it with "men bad", that's why it's not as constructive a term as it could be."
Specifically, people have been told that it means masculinity is toxic rather than a specific type of masculinity.
It sits in the same realm as "mansplaining" to me. There's an actual academic background behind it that's largely fair and reasonable, but I mostly see it misused as a way to attack men
YES! Mansplaining isn't just a man explaining things.
> makes games shitty because reasons
> makes game developers to suicide
> Gen Z play games more than baby boomers
I wonder why...
Well, that's a new one. Not that surprising, though.
Feminism has 100% turned into a push for superiority, not equality.
Modern feminists believe it's "their turn" to be the abusers.
Just listen to the disparaging jokes we've all heard them make towards men and imagine how they would react if the same things were said about women.
I think generalising across the whole group like that is what got us into this mess.
100%. What's your proof? Jokes. Ok buddy
What makes you believe that women are now the abusers and superior to men?
🤡
How did they define femanism cos by trational dedinition of equal i heighly doubt it
Considering the kind of feminists that are extremely loud today, and how they're borderline, if not literally, misandrist... I'm not entirely surprised.
This, of course, leaves them wide open to suggestion from bad actors like Andrew Tate.
The absolute cesspool of r/feminism is really damaging to women's rights.
LOL people have vomited precisely what you just said for 100 years on this subject. Of course, 100 years ago, they were using the police to torture women who wanted to vote, so maybe there is progress.
No, no they didn't. But hey, who am I to expect current day militant brainlets to be educated in history?
lol right to the personal attack. Grow up
It's always funny when people who propagate a certain detrimental idealogy cry about being personally attacked.
You are the problem. Of course you're getting personally attacked.
"1/5th of one quarter of the small group of men who participated in one survey that was only taken in a single country know who Andrew Tate is and approve of him, thus all GenZ men hate feminism"
This article is a fucking joke
I can't believe I actually had a full on moment of, "thankfully that's not me" before realising I'm not a boy or a man anyway.
This is sad and concerning though
I'd wager that people who think that couldn't give you a coherent definition of what feminism actually is.
God fucking forbid women receive equal treatment or autonomy over their bodies!
Is there a coherent definition of feminism that feminists agree on?
(I think that people's opinion about feminism is commonly their opinion about self-identified feminists. It's fair to say "I believe feminism is harmful because the opinions I have heard self-identified feminists express have often seemed ridiculous, offensive, or counterproductive" without needing a definition of feminism that goes beyond self-identification.)
The definition I found that popped up on google pretty well sums up what I have always heard women say.
It's really that simple. It's not a women over men movement. It's a movement to receive the same respect, rights, and inclusion that men have enjoyed basically forever. They want the right to make decisions about their body. They'd like to maybe not be victims of sexual assault and rape and staggering percentages (about 1 in 6 American women will be raped in their lifetime). They'd like to have a better chance at corporate leadership (10% of fortune 500 CEOs are women). They'd like to have more of a footprint in government (roughly 28% of the US congress is female and this is a record high).
They just want equity and respect and they deserve it.
There's an essay that I agree with about that sort of definition.
Here's a relevant excerpt:
Let's say that, for example, I affirmed my belief that people should be hired based on their ability rather than on their sex, but then I said that there are more men than women in software development mainly due to biological differences. That doesn't go against your definition, but do you think most feminists would react well to it? They didn't when James Damore said it, or when the president of Harvard said something similar...
(This is despite the fact that it's commonly accepted that biological differences between the sexes are the main reason why there are more men than women who are violent criminals.)
As a man myself I'm just having a hard time sympathizing with other men who grief at a term like "mansplaining" and in that find the justifications for disregarding the crux of what feminism seeks to make right. Is the term thrown around too much? Sure, I bet it is. So are a lot of absolutely vile quips about women. I can empathize with why some women are as verbally antagonistic towards men as they are.
To your other point. Are women underrepresented in STEM fields because they lack the ability to tackle those problems or because women have been historically directed away from those sorts of professions for as long as we have history to look back on?
You can play some of this off to less women wanting X or Y job, but if you cannot acknowledge men holding 9 out of 10 CEO positions in fortune 500 companies as maybe being a symptom of major structural imbalances in favor of men, I do not know what to tell you. I've watched women be professionally undermined throughout the entirety of my working life.
Also I missed your edit on your previous comment:
Would it be then fair to say that, men broadly speaking are harmful because a not insignificant group of men rape about 16% of the female population? I think judging any group wholesale by the actions of it's most extreme cohort is problematic. And in this case we're talking about words women said that made some guys feel bad.
I just don't buy into the counter argument to feminism and I think this quote sums up how a lot of men are feeling about the topic right now.
To speak to that, back when software development was not a prestigious job, it was done mostly by women. The lead developer for the Apollo program's guidance software is a woman, Margaret Hamilton.
Who's that "Poll"? I wanna kick her in the pussy...
Should we start referring to them as Gen incel?
Gen zigma
Y'all know it's incels, right?
From what I read of the polls, Im strongly inclined that its religion based not incels.