369
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You got a response that gave you some examples, and you respond:

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:

Does anyone have a link to any of these? )

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:

Feminism 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.

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

What examples?

The ones you were given.

The guy said look on twitter on National Men's Day,

No, they didn't. They told you to look at a specific account on a specific 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.'

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.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world -5 points 9 months ago

No, they didn’t. They told you to look at a specific account on a specific day.

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.

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago

OP had mentioned feminists being bad at PR and then mentioned negative articles.

Not 'negative articles', he said 'most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men' (emphasis mine.)

and an article they remembered seeing

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.)

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Not 'negative articles', he said 'most articles

Yes, the articles were negative in their views.

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.

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.

Caitlin Moran even wrote a damn novel on issues and challenges facing straight, white, able-bodied men that need to be solved.

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?

If feminist PR sucks, you're reading right-wing articles/twitter posts/apparently reddit posts according to another post of theirs.

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.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

Yes, the articles were negative in their views.

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.

this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
369 points (92.6% liked)

News

23367 readers
3194 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