Gosh, imagine that… the party that wants to turn women into forced breeders isn’t popular with the people they want to turn into forced breeders.
The actually surprising shift is that Gen Z men are more conservative and less likely to identify as supporting feminists than Millenials.
Actual poll: https://www.gallup.com/analytics/506663/american-youth-research.aspx
You can also find a lot of summaries out there.
I don’t see anything on that page that talks about gen z men. And the full report is paywalled. Can you copy paste the lines that you’re thinking of?
Maybe edginess? I feel like the majority of the male youth has to rebell against what their parents did and so it flip flops back and forth.
That and the crisis of masculinity in a machismo culture which is being actively used against them by idiots everywhere.
There’s nothing more manly than being respectful towards women. Just ask women.
I don’t find that hard to believe at all, young men are not fans of feminism and it’s affecting their judgment of leftist economic policies.
And propagandists are exploiting that as well. They feel all their issues with the changes in dating and relationships in general are the fault of “the left” and women in general, there are no shortage of people waiting to jump on those points for their own financial and political gain.
Of course they will, it’s not on them to do so differently.
Imo it’s on democrats and “left leaning parties” to appeal to young men and maybe put similar attention to men’s issues as they do for women’s.
the party that wants to turn women into forced breeders isn’t popular with the people they want to turn into forced breeders.
This isn’t new policy though. Consider Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s statements back in 2010
Dave Montgomery of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram asked Hutchison if the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision should remain in effect. “What concerns me about that is that we would then have some states that would allow abortion as the baby is coming out of the birth canal,” Hutchison responded. “I would never support that. I have voted against it, and I would not want that to be the situation in any state in our country. And that is why I have stated that position.”
“So you would not support the overturning of Roe v. Wade?” asked KERA’s Shelley Kofler.
“What I’m saying,” replied Hutchison as the crowd began to chuckle at her discomfort, “is you’re going to have abortion havens.”
This was a relatively liberal Republican who had taken office back when Texas a purple state, spouting the same nonsense Trump vomited up Tuesday night 14 years ago. A woman who ran 17 years early on
Her detractors are circulating an old clip from a debate during her first run at the Senate, in 1993. In it, she said, “I am very comfortable that Roe v. Wade is working very well.” Her position was that there should be no government intervention before viability (which she placed in “the six-month range”) but that states should be allowed to establish “reasonable restrictions such as parental consent.”
Her 2010 shift did not cause women to jump ship for the Democratic Party. Far from it. Texas only got redder over the next decade.
I think a big part of that was people genuinely believing the lies that the GOP was churning out. Maybe they’ve simply lost their Sidam touch or maybe Americans are finally cracking wise to the bullshit, some 40 years after the War on Abortion really kicked off.
But you can’t just hang your hat on “Women are being treated like chattle” because that’s been the national norm for centuries. What’s really changing is that women now seem more reluctant to fill that role than in prior eras.
I think people are so easily swayed by what they’re told about themselves that very often when the women are told that they’re more liberal, they adopt it to be good group members, and when the men are told that they’re more conservative, they adopt it to be good group members.
Edit: Which is not intended to counter what you said about forced breeders, which is absolutely true.
I think we need to take polls of Gen Z men with a massive grain of salt. Polling is already pretty fucked right now, but Gen Z is absolutely the hardest to poll.
Gen Z is the hardest to poll but when you’re polling within Gen Z specifically it seems like there isn’t a huge response bias - I believe the bigger issue you’re thinking about is that when intergenerational polling (i.e. a lot of presidential polling atm) is done there is a massive amount of error correction needed to properly scale response numbers from Gen Z - or Gen Z needs to be intentionally oversampled due to their low response rate - to avoid undercounting Gen Z…
There’s an additional complication that as the youngest voting cohort it’s difficult to predict how active they will be in voting. It tends to be that once you’ve voted a few times you’re much more likely to vote in future elections and its hard to predict with younger folks how active they were in the last election and how many new voters will be convinced to join the electorate.
That last point is why I constantly harp on about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, that seems to be a really important issue for Gen Z voters and if Dems have an underwhelming position (even if it’s clearly better than Trump openly calling to just genocide Palestine) then turn out will suffer and Democrats will underperform.
The actually surprising shift is that Gen Z men are more conservative and less likely to identify as supporting feminists than Millenials.
I don’t know how common it is, but I saw a specific instance on social media (I want to say instagram?) where the comments on something were ordered and displayed (some hidden) completely differently based upon the user’s gender. Just based upon that single profile attribute the entire comments sections looked completely different.
When you spend a decade talking about men as rapists, abusers and incels thats what happens.
Kids dont have the ability to reason their way out of it, so they look for acceptance and right-wing pundits have been waiting with open arms.
This is a common man-o-sphere narrative but most people, within their own circles, have healthy intergender relationships. We talk about rapists, abusers, and incels as rapists, abusers, and incels - those folks can be women or men. While women are justifiably cautious around strange men late at night that doesn’t mean all men are abusers, rapists, or incels.
You are correct.
But itd be disingenuous to say that there isnt a pretty noticeable discussion that says all men are absusers on places like twitter and discord.
And kids dont have the faculties to dissect a statement like that.
It’s not just a narrative in conservative talking spheres for men.
I think the appeal of weirdos like that Tate guy is super simple. From the age of about 13 into the 20’s, testosterone. It makes you think about sex. Period. People like Tate are saying, hey you horny men, here’s how to get women, that thing you can’t stop thinking about.
That’s really the only appeal. Tate just so happens to have god awful politics.
Learning how to make friends and influence people is seen as leadership building. Learning how to pick up women to sleep with them is seen as toxic. In general men’s sexuality is seen as more violent than women’s. This is why women’s fashion involves them walking around half naked a lot of the time, and men’s fashion, even at the beach men where shorts that go below the knees often times. It’s just the way it is. Men are hornier than women. A lot hornier.
Feminism has definitely been saying for years that men need to avoid being rapey, that men are toxic and need to work towards being non toxic, than men need to go out of their way to not be threatening in any way towards women (such as the example you’ve given, men should cross the street to avoid walking near a woman at night, even though men are more likely to be assaulted by strangers to a very large degree, and even though women are more likely to be assaulted by people they know personally, which means their fear of strangers at night is probably not as justified as you suggest)
This is just to say that when we start the conversation off with young men as, you are literally toxic, I don’t know how or why you would expect a different result than for young men to see feminists as a group of man haters.
Men and boys have been left behind, and there is a need for a men’s rights group that is similar to feminism that advocates for men and boys. Feminism can not fulfill this need. And neither can people like Tate or Peterson…. But for this to happen, feminists need to allow men and boys their own space to discuss and work through these issues on their own.
I think those stories were a little overblown. They’re less likely to be feminists but that doesn’t mean they’re more conservative. The IPSOS study is full of loaded questions and nothing to actually nail down what men think of women’s rights. Just feel stuff like, “are you a feminist? Has women’s rights gone too far in your country? Are men asked to do too much?”
What they needed to ask was actual policy questions, “should women receive the same pay as men? Should women be able to hold office and work jobs? Are there jobs that should be off limits to women?”
I’m willing to bet you’ll find more gen Z answering yes yes no, while also believing the feminist movement has gone too far.
That’s because it’s not the same feminist movement as it was when millennials were gen z’s age.
The last questions are what feminism used to be (what millennials liked). Nowadays, however, feminism is plagued by not-feminist people, that instead of wanting equality want women superiority. That’s the feminism gen z knows about, and the men don’t like it. That’s also the reason they answer “no” to “are you a feminist?” But they support actual feminist policies. The definition of feminism has changed.
EDIT: just for reference: my county (Spain) recently put porn under a passport with limited uses per month. Why did they do that? They claim feminism. Does that sound like feminism to you?
Like most ideologies and movements there are factions. And I do get that most people don’t look close or just don’t care enough to see them. But what you’re describing is militant feminism. And even normal feminists don’t like militant feminists. At the same time, traditionalists attempt to paint the entire movement as militant.
“Feminism” is like philosophy in that over time it makes certain wins, and the discussion around that topic gradually sheds the label.
In the same way that ancient philosophers were establishing the disciplines we now call mathematics, geometry, and physics, or early modern philosophers were establishing what we now call economics and political science, and mid-century/postwar philosophers were establishing what is now called computer science and information theory, the history of feminism is notching wins and making them normal:
- In Anglo American law, women were able to own their own property beginning in the early 19th century, starting in the American South (somewhat ironically driven by southern concerns about preserving the institution of slavery).
- Women were allowed to be considered for credit and banking services, equal to men, beginning in the 1970’s.
- Women earned the legal right to equal pay for equal work in the 70’s, even as cultural attitudes in many circles still considered that to be government overreach (even today).
- Marital rape and other forms of domestic violence were outlawed pretty recently. The last state to criminalize marital rape did so in 1993, the same year that Jurassic Park came out in theaters.
- Liberalized divorce rules throughout the 80’s allowed women to leave abusive husbands more easily.
- Most gender segregation in official government institutions were dismantled in the 1980’s and the 1990’s, including the abolition of male-only universities, and laws imposing different legal drinking ages between men and women.
Today, many of us who were alive when these rules were in effect think of them as totally backwards. Nobody is seriously advocating for a return to denying women the right to have their own bank accounts, or giving husbands the right to rape their wives without consequences.
But the cultural understanding of the meaning of feminism rarely considers preserving past wins, even recent wins. People only think of it as fighting for something in the future.
The problem in marketing feminism to young men is it many of them have not personally experienced, or at least understood, how being a man gives them advantages in society as opposed to women. Young men also have a difficult time understanding how easily they can be viewed as toxic, creepy, or even dangerous without self control and respect for others.
I wish I had an answer, most of the young men in my life are more right leaning and think “feminazi” is a legitimate wat to describe left leaning people.
Most men have experienced the stifling gender norms that force them into a box: they’re not allowed to cry or show any feeling other than anger, there’s no such thing as non-sexual touch or romance, women don’t like sex so trying to get close to them is inherently rapey and goes against their desires.
Feminism fights against that trap, that men are only men if they check certain boxes. That’s what’s toxic: telling men they’re not allowed to be certain ways.
So yeah, feminism does have a lot to offer men. Toxic societal expectations are bad for everyone.
This; we are often in a desperate state if mind, suffocated by pressure and expectation. While the pain made me be more liberal and have more empathy for other people, the desperation can also drive people to listen to anyone who is offering them a solution. In this lies the problem; the ‘alpha male’ crooks are trying to sell them a lifestyle that they think will make them happy. They are offering them solution, though one that doesn’t help them. TERFS and the “kill all men” feminists don’t help either, they just fuel the hate, overshadowing even helpful feminists and in general activists that are trying to provide ACTUAL solution.
I think we could greatly improve society if majority of people started to treat people based on who they are, instead of what their genitals are. And sorry for bad English.
Totally agree. Even back in the 70s, the wonderful feminist movie/record Free To Be You and Me (with songs like “It’s All Right to Cry” sung by an NFL player) was at least as much about men not being defined a certain way as it was about women.
I think one hurdle for men right off the bat is the fact that it’s called “feminism”. That makes it clear that it has something to offer women, but doesn’t make it obvious that it has something to offer men too, so they don’t give it an open mind.
(I’m not actually saying that I think the name should change, and in fact the movement could potentially drift away from its core mission over time if the name didn’t have women as the focus. Just saying it’s a hurdle.)
