It has long been the case that American women are generally more liberal than American men. But among young Americans, this gender gap has widened into an enormous rift: According to recent Gallup polling, there is a 30-point differencebetween the number of women age 18–30 who self-identify as liberal and the number of men in that demographic who do the same.

That’s largely because young women have gotten much more liberal, while young men have stayed ideologically more consistent—or, according to other analyses, become more conservative and anti-feminist. (Of course, not every person identifies as a man or woman. But gender roles still play a big part in shaping our lives and politics, and in the context of this column, I am focusing mostly on the vast majority of Americans who identify as one or the other.) It’s not happening just here either; the political divide between the sexes is a trend that researchers are observing in some other countries too.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    However, you yourself utilized reductive thinking to come to that conclusion.

    How so? I’m criticizing women who make blanket statements about men, and I was careful to make it clear that I’m taking about that subset of women, not women in general.

    How prevalent is this attitude among feminist?

    It’s prevalent enough that I’ve encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. It’s also prevalent enough that it’s a common complaint from men.

    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 didn’t think it’s an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric, and what I’m criticizing is a certain brand of feminist rhetoric, not feminism per se.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      How so? I’m criticizing women who make blanket statements about men, and I was careful to make it clear that I’m taking about that subset of women, not women in general.

      Idk, you said" a lot of women" and “I imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted turn I do”, not exactly specific language.

      prevalent enough that I’ve encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. It’s also prevalent enough that it’s a common complaint from men.

      Again, anecdotal evidence. I have not experienced this, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Assuming that all societal discourse is reflection of your own experience is a product of reductive reasoning.

      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 doesn’t utilize as precise language as you would like, it doesn’t automatically mean that their point is moot. Nor does it really mean they were unintentionally making a claim.

      If someone is making a claim like “men evil” and there is surrounding context that should lead you to believe that this is not a literal statement, like them having a boyfriend or being married to a man…isn’t saying “not all men” pedantic? Or even worse, could be interpreted as you purposely misinterpreting the intent of the statement?

      But I didn’t think it’s an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric

      Couldn’t your need for specified absolution be an example of internalized misanthropy? One could assume that people who do not self associate with accusations intended for misogynists, have no real need for this type of pedantic relief.

      Again, my whole point that political discourse is exceedingly hard. And it’s made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isn’t being specific enough for their taste.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        All I’m really asking for is for people to say anything at all besides just “men” when making complaints about certain men. It doesn’t need to be precise, just clear enough that it’s obvious that all men aren’t the target of criticism. I met the same standard I’m asking for, so I don’t thing I’m being hypocritical or overly reductive. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for people to use a qualifier like “many” when complaining about a specific subset of men.

        And it’s made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isn’t being specific enough for their taste.

        I’m not doing that. I’m making my point in a thread that’s specifically about why feminism is often seen in a bad light. Where else could I possibly find a more appropriate venue for such a criticism?

        That even if you are talking to a person who doesn’t utilize as precise language as you would like, it doesn’t automatically mean that their point is moot.

        I never said it did. I’m 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 “not all men”. You’re missing something critical: while I used myself as an example, my comment was not about me. It’s about all the men who see women talk that way and come away with the impression that feminism is hostile to them just because they’re men. You don’t need to convince me of anything, and even if you did, convincing me would not solve the problem.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          All I’m really asking for is for people to say anything at all besides just “men” when making complaints about certain men. It doesn’t need to be precise, just clear enough that it’s obvious that all men aren’t the target of criticism

          Right, but isn’t it a bit far fetched to be taken literally? That there are a significant amount of women who hate every man in their life?

          If I said men love sports, would you demand me pretext that with “not all men”?

          I’m not doing that. I’m making my point in a thread that’s specifically about why feminism is often seen in a bad light. Where else could I possibly find a more appropriate venue for such a criticism?

          That was in reference to the “not all men” rhetoric.

          I’m saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.

          Maybe that means you may be overreacting?

          I know better than to say “not all men”. You’re missing something critical: while I used myself as an example, my comment was not about me.

          You’re just validating their interpretation?

          It’s about all the men who see women talk that way and come away with the impression that feminism is hostile to them just because they’re men.

          I think people whom think that way are just finding pedantic reasons to be upset at something they already have made opinions about.

          You don’t need to convince me of anything, and even if you did, convincing me would not solve the problem.

          Not trying to convince you of anything besides my original retort, communication about politics is hard. Just look at our conversation.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            communication about politics is hard. Just look at our conversation.

            It might not be so hard if everything you said wasn’t dripping with condescension.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

                • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Ahh yes, I forgot. Anything that runs counter to your expert opinion is condescending.

                  Sounds like a perfectly legitimate rebuttal…

                  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Let’s see, you said I was reductive, I’m overdramatic, I’m a misanthrope, I’m seeking absolution, I’m intentionally misinterpreting things, I’m pedantic, I’m constantly detailing conversations with women, I’m pretending to be an expert…

                    I was trying to have a conversation about the state of feminist discourse, and you’ve tried to make it about me at every turn, to the point that you’re constantly making shit up about me. So now that I think about it, you’re worse than condescending. You’re an asshole who responds to disagreement with insults and then you have the gall to accuse me of doing what you’ve been doing the whole time. Big narcissist energy, bud.

                    Feel free to keep wasting your time disparaging me, since you seem to be enjoying it so much, but I’m done with this sad excuse for a conversation.