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.
As a relatively young woman, I like being treated as an equal in a partnership, rather than as a utility in a relationship. Iād rather be alone than a grown adultās nanny. This is a wild idea to many young men who have trouble respecting women, but insist they are the most respectful to women because they hold the door open sometimes.
I think itās pretty straightforward why this happens - liberal politics as a hive mind talks to women, but it does not talk to men. Even this piece, look at the following quote.
Actor Johnny Depp sued his ex-wife Amber Heard after she wrote a #MeToo op-ed in the Washington Post; even though the piece didnāt name him, Depp argued that it was defamatory, and legions of his fans (including plenty of women) engaged in a monthslong campaign of vicious harassment, threats, and vilification of Heard and anyone who might stand up for her.
The one case where it was at mutual abuse by both parties, they talk about Depp abusing Heard, but not Heard abusing Depp. Thatās why there is a divide. The problem is framed as āviolence against womenā, instead of ādomestic violence against peopleā.
To be clear, modern society presents all people with new problems. But while generic problems like stagnating wages are being talked about as a generic issue, and womenās issues get space as at least a successful special interest issue, issues disproportionately affecting men donāt. This results in shitheads like Tate fleecing them and fucking up society at large as well.
Which is why some men are becoming āanti-feministā. Itās not that theyāre anti-women, itās that they are anti-āA movement that tells them they are the source of all problems and offers them no supportā. Why support a cause that openly tells you youāre the bad guy just for what private parts you have while simultaneously shouting that private parts are irrelevant and shouldnt be part of the conversation.
But nah, guys are just hateful and terrible. Keep up the divide š
Which is why some men are becoming āanti-feministā. Itās not that theyāre anti-women, itās that they are anti-āA movement that tells them they are the source of all problems and offers them no supportā.
I think the problem is more inherent in how America interprets liberalism. We donāt include things like class consciousness into liberal ideology, here itās all about addressing specific systemic inequalities between certain demographics.
When you define liberalism as only fixing these inequalities then of course a large population of men arenāt going to involve themselves, they donāt reap any benefit, theyāre not experiencing any systemic abuse.
However, if we accommodate socioeconomic realities of class into the equation, things start making a bit more sense. By protecting the most disadvantaged demographic in your class, you also strengthen your own interests.
I think itās important to keep in mind exactly who people are talking about when they make general criticism about men. If you arenāt participating in misogyny, then they really arenāt talking about you. They just arenāt vocalizing the division in class that separates us all from the reigns of power.
I think itās important to keep in mind exactly who people are talking about when they make general criticism about men. If you arenāt participating in misogyny, then they really arenāt talking about you.
Iām a leftist man and I hate that this phenomenon is considered acceptable. On one hand, a lot of women make criticisms of āmenā without further qualification, and even make fun of anyone who says ānot all menā, but then theyāll turn around and say āoh we didnāt mean you, just misogynistsā. Iām on the fence about even identifying as a man (as opposed to non-binary), and my political views generally very well aligned with feministsā, but nonetheless even I feel insulted, so I imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted than I do.
How hard is it for critics of toxic masculinity to just say what they actually mean instead of saying a bunch of blatantly sexist things things and then claiming they meant something else when theyāre called on it? It has exactly the same energy as the āSchrodingerās douchebagā phenomenon, but in that case we see it as obviously disingenuous, but with criticisms of āmenā, weāre supposed to accept that women really donāt mean what they say.
Women who do this need to fucking stop, because theyāre draining enthusiasm from their male allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
Edit: typo
How hard is it for critics of toxic masculinity to just say what they actually mean instead of saying a bunch of blatantly sexist things things and then claiming they meant something else when theyāre called on it?
Tbh, pretty difficult. At least for the vast majority of people. Putting together a comprehensive argument pertaining to socioeconomics or politics without it being full of internal contradictions is nearly impossible. Especially if your ideological framework 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.
Women who do this need to fucking stop, because theyāre draining enthusiasm from their male allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
Is essentially the same as saying the men who are misogynist need to stop because they are draining enthusiasm from their female allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
None of these are actual solutions to problems, they donāt even really identify a problem, itās just rhetoric.
However, you yourself utilized reductive thinking to come to that conclusion.
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.
How prevalent is this attitude among feminist?
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.
Is essentially the same as saying the men who are misogynist need to stop because they are draining enthusiasm from their female allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
They do need to stop. But I 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.
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.
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.
prevalent enough that Iāve encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. Itās also prevalent enough that itās a common complaint from men.
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.
They do need to stop.
Right, but who are you making that request to? If a woman randomly yelled out to you that misogynist men needed to be cast out of society, what assumptions would you make? How different would it be if they just specified men, not misogynist men?
My point is that actual productive discourse requires context, nuance, and patience. That even if you are talking to a person who 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?
But I didnāt think itās an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric
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.
And itās made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isnāt being specific enough for their taste.
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?
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.
I never said it did. Iām saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.
Or even worse, could be interpreted as you purposely misinterpreting the intent of the statement?
I know better than to say 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.
