307
Gen Z boys and men more likely than baby boomers to believe feminism harmful, says poll
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
307 points (92.8% liked)
News
23364 readers
4130 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.