To me what stands out is not the fact that men speak up more than women do, but that women get ignored/dismissed when they do speak. I make an effort to:
Give them attention
Understand their point of view
Engage in their point of view
Not let others (men) interrupt and if they do, quickly get back to the core discussion until the speaker is satisfied/has said everything they wanted to say
Basically give your attention not to the loudest ones, but the ones that deserve it. Things like these make all people who usually don’t engage in discussions more likely to engage in the future.
I think you are absolutely right. In general I think that everyone should feel comfortable to speak when they want but in return should respect that other people get the right to have their voice heard too.
When dealing with small groups, I ask participants for their perspective by name. The loudest doesn’t go first, and everyone gets equal-ish time. That doesn’t scale to a large forum though.
It’s not just a gender thing, it’s also a family/culture thing. Like I just come from a family where people will talk over each other, but than I have some balkan friends who will talk over me like it’s nothing (no matter the gender). What I try to do is to adjust to the situation - if someone is quieter I will let them speak out, if someone is interrupting I will also join in in a more lively way. In a group setting if I see that someone is getting talked over - I will try to refer the conversation back to them.
Articles like this suck. They contribute absolutely nothing to discussion by just saying “well, other people also have problems too”, without even attempting to suggest any direction where a solution is.
They contribute context? And if you have women in your life it affects you as well somehow. Tbf there’s wasn’t really anything new in it for me personally, but mb it helps someone else to be more empathetic.
Ahh, yes. The only possible reason I could want to make progress is because it’s edgy. How about you go somewhere else if you’re only interested in dismissing everything out of hand
A solution which doesn’t care about context, empathy and emotions in regard to social problems is not worth much. Also you were the one dismissing anything I was contributing
But do they identify as a non-labelled person that respects women and their choices? Or is this just about political labelling made for marketing and division?
I mean it makes sense. Feminism has become quite the loaded term as of recent, and young people are going to be a lot more distanced from the earlier wages of feminism.
That’s what I’d assume. My impression is that many Gen-Z might associate the term “Feminism” with J.K. Rowling and such, Trans-Exclusionary feminists as it were. If there were questions that could suss out concern about trans issues, or even LGBT+ issues in general, I suspect the differences between generation might match.
Not even getting into substantive issues, the people who loudly proclaim their feminism online are usually total fucking jackasses since honest people see little need to hide behind the concept of “feminism”, as if it’s a shield against criticism.
Overall, a more substantive survey would just be better. Or really anything beyond “self ID with a broad and contentious label”.
I don’t know how much I trust AEI’s motivation, methods or conclusions. The same survey also shows gen z are much less likely to go to church, less likely to drink and smoke, less likely to have a girlfriend/boyfriend…and gen x and boomers are more likely to do all of that. Is it true? Probably. But when you are asking a 19 year old and a 59 year old the same question…how do you even calculate what the answer means?
Currently Gen Z included aa young as 11. Are they polling 13 year olds? Because I definitely give zero shits what 13 year old boys think.
Yes I’m joking because the very premise of comparing the age groups with specific questions is problematic. “Are you a feminist” doesn’t mean the same thing to someone born in 2002 as it does someone born in 1972.
If you ask me…a 40-something man, I say yes I’m a feminist because I want you to know I am an ally and support women. If you ask a 16 year old, I would doubt the word means much to them at all. But I bet they will be more supportive of women than our generation anyway.
Language changes with time, not with birth year. While someone born in 1972 certainly has much more life experience and context than someone born in 2002, the question today will mean approximately the same thing to both.
Not really, no. People aren’t working off some master database of language that pushes updates out universally. They’re working from their own understanding based on their own life experiences. Someone born in 1973 will have a very different socialization and bundle of personal experiences than someone born in 2002.
Gen-X men see eye-to-eye with male Gen-Zers. An identical 43 percent of men in that bracket call themselves feminists, compared to 49 percent of the generation’s women.
I feel like the authors think these 2 sentences are supporting the same argument, and I think they do not.
Asking someone if they “identify as a feminist” is vastly different than exploring their core values. “Feminism” is a badly exploited word that means many different things to many different people, even within a generational cohort.
It’s entirely possible that the sample of Gen-Xers that identify as feminist also carry more regressive beliefs than Gen-Zers that said they were not feminists.
The way this study was summarized in the article smells a lot like an older author (read: Gen-X or Boomer) trying to make sense of Gen-Z by plopping them into buckets created for the older generation.
I don’t know anything about anything, but this smelled less of science than an article reporting a study ought to.
A big part is diminishing religiosity. There is little point in getting married if you aren’t religious. Thanks to progress made by LGBT couples, most of the legal benefits of marriage are shared by domestic partnerships. Traditionalists on the left and the right make a big deal of this, but it is of negligible factual importance.
I don't think most people who get married do it for religious reasons or even to start a family in the US anymore. People do it since they see it a formal a commitment and want to announce their love in public.
That only covers one angle, if people do it for religious reasons, not if they don’t do it because of religion. I’m not getting married, and the religious connotations of even a secular wedding is a significant chunk of why.
There’s also a million legal reasons to get married… If there weren’t, same sex marriage would probably have never made it to the Supreme Court. Everything from insurance coverage, employment benefits, credit rating, child custody, transfer of property following death, medical decisions, and a bunch of other very secular, very important benefits are conferred via legal marriage.
Is there any way to adapt this better for polyamorous people? I have poly friends that got around it by choosing a primary partner and marrying them, but that seems like a bad solution in the long term.
I don't think that is going to be happening for a long time. It took decades for gays and lesbians. The marrying of a primary partner is the best solution so far.
I like the suggestion that we concern ourselvrs more with the quality of men’s internal lives, but I do worry we’re still objectifying men as ‘the problem’.
Navigating interpersonal relationships in a time of evolving gender norms and expectations “requires a level of emotional sensitivity that I think some men probably just lack, or they don’t have the experience,” he added.
I like the quote above about this topic but it does still seem like men are the problem. The problem is that we as a society haven't taught those skills and worse yet reinforce the opposite. We should be concerned with men's internal lives and mold them to fit into modern society
Seriously. We can’t just call men “the problem”. We have to address the problems men are having in their social lives and in dating. Men are not being given a fair shot to bring their best selves.
He had recently read about a high school creative writing assignment in which boys and girls were asked to imagine a day from the perspective of the opposite sex. While girls wrote detailed essays showing they had already spent significant time thinking about the subject, many boys simply refused to do the exercise or did so resentfully.
I mean, we're not just talking about the ability to communicate (which is important), but the basic ability to empathize. If men (in general) are unwilling to even consider the female point of view, is it any wonder why women have a difficult time dating? This isn't happening in a vacuum; there are real reasons why this is happening.
Think of the structural issues which have caused this to be the case. Blaming men for not achieving an externally defined target isn’t going to help anyone.
Boys refusing to do an exercise about imagining a day as the other gender represents a social problem, not a men problem. High school boys who refuse to imagine themselves as someone else were taught to be resistant to that idea, and not only by men but society as a whole.
Maybe we stop with top down one size fits all solutions to human interaction? The article is a good example of part of the problem, as it seems to exonerate one group while putting all the onus for change on the other. Mainly by it having essentially a single position from all them people that the author uses as sources and references and the narrow scope that they actually show.
You couldn’t be more in your own echo chamber. If other men are telling you woman also act the same way as some men and also have issues and you refuse to see another position or point of view you are the problem.
I would hesitate to draw conclusions from something like that. Both me and a lot of the other men I know just flat out skipped basically every assignment like that if it didn’t give enough points to be worth the effort, from middle school up through college.
Beyond that, it just seems like a shitty assignment as a whole. Because either a) it’s done under an assumption that their day as the opposite sex would be spontaneous, and thus would have very few relevant differences from their normal days (and we can easily guess those differences) or b) it’s done under an assumption of having always been the opposite sex, in which case it would just be an exercise in the butterfly effect, since huge amounts of things would be different, to the point that any generic hypothetical day would work.
All this is to say, it’s a prime assignment for skipping
mensliberation
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.