this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
24 points (81.6% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4544 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sorry, OP, but this is a garbage op-ed. It offers very little information about, much less insight into the study in question, meaning mostly the article just serves to give the author a chance to express her political slant via pejorative adjectives towards right-wing groups. The fact that I happen to agree with her slant doesn’t change the fact that it’s not a good article.

I for one think it’s a phenomenon worth investigating further, this question of why young men in particular are saying they feel alienated from both political parties. I don’t know, but I strongly suspect the extent to which Democrats embrace increasingly exclusionary and misandrist slogans created by feminists is part of it.

Feminism is very important for women’s rights, but I’ve realized as I’ve grown up that the movement’s leaders have absolutely zero interest in policing their man-hating radicals. Whenever said radicals are brought up—even when it’s in a mainstream context—feminists are quick to dismiss them and claim it’s unfair to judge the movement by their statements. To which my response is: if you can’t be bothered to keep their misandrist talking points out of your mainstream discourse, then I have no reason to believe they’re as fringe as you say, much less that you actually disagree with them.

To the extent that democrats either embrace or tolerate this kind of talk (and they do), I can easily see how a teenage boy who leans liberal would hesitate to identify as such when they hear liberal mouthpieces pushing language and concepts that either demonize, exclude, or minimize men. It’s a problem the Democrats have not taken seriously, and I sincerely hope they start to, because the Right is eager to capitalize on it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not an op-ed, it's just reporting on the study and reactions to it. The whole article is barely six paragraphs long and doesn't get into any editorializing. The survey also says about a third still haven't made up their mind.

And if you're going to spout of reasons why this is the case, it would be great if you would have something concrete to back up your assertion beyond your gut telling you this is the case. Do you have statistics about how much exposure the average teenage boy has to radical feminists?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not an op-ed

It's literally in the "Opinion" section of the Guardian's website.

Do you have statistics about how much exposure the average teenage boy has to radical feminists?

No, not on hand. This is just my opinion, but the author of the op-ed above even suggests feminist slogans might be part of the reason why the data from the study looks the way it does. Teenage boys are at least as exposed to social media as the rest of us (or do I need an official study to make that claim too?), so I think it's safe to assume they're exposed to posts about "toxic masculinity," "mansplaining," "manspreading," "#yesallmen," "ironic misandry," and articles like this and this.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why did you put quotes around toxic masculinity?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be pejorative of course, most of those are objectively actual things. It's like when I say they're entitled to their "opinion" I'm actually implying they don't know asshole from elbow.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, I'm sure you realize you'll be taken less seriously when you take such a broadly mocking approach up front and then only temper it when asked. You sound a bit like the feminists you're criticizing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look at usernames, prepare yourself.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Look at usernames,

I really should.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you'd rather all women spend their time running around shouting "not all women" instead of like...being whole humans with their own interests and personalities? What a creepy take.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

This is such a brain dead take on what they said.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

I think you will find some articles you like and some that you don't. Politics is a large umbrella and not everything will be a subject you are interested in.