Young, Male and Anti-Feminist – The Gen Z Boys Who Hate Women

[MondayYogurt]

Sorry it's Vice, but possibly worth discussing: www.vice.com/en/article/dyv7by/anti-feminist-gen-z-boys-who-hate-women

Half of young men in the UK now believe that feminism has “gone too far and makes it harder for men to succeed”. These are the results of a significant study published in July 2020 by anti-extremism charity HOPE not Hate. The study, Young People in the Time of COVID-19, surveyed 2,076 16- to 24-year-olds on their ideological beliefs.

Interesting point that there is a (potential) ideological motivation to deny the reality of gender, because otherwise it could risk the reinforcement of gender roles seen as oppressive.

The reality of gender differences doesn't automatically have to involve oppressive gender roles however. For example, perhaps women will always tend to prefer profession A, and men will always tend to prefer profession B. Now if there are equivalent pay and conditions for the different jobs, then it's difficult to see that anyone is oppressed by it, if they are just doing what they have a preference to do, and they could have easily done otherwise if they had a different preference. (And of course there would probably be such cases of people going outside the typical gender role.)

Where it would get more controversial is where pay and conditions weren't equivalent, but you wanted to argue that there were legitimate reasons for that.

Gender is a social construct though which is why the feminist argument often butts up against that of people who believe in Gender. So Gender roles squash women into child-raising and home-making and men into breadwinner office-jockey/worker. And obviously, feminism has no truck with that.

And so on and so on.

Frankly? (and we have moved right away from the OP with this) i would prefer to abolish all notions of gender norms and conventions and let people dress, work and act however they like (within the parameters of not harming others as usual)

@FOJN

I'd hate to offer my opinion on a male-dominated forum and be told I was womansplaining/trolling the thread.

No one can be this naive, it literally isn't credible.

I'm really sorry, but I truly am that naive! Apart from this, I don't spend much time on online forums and have no social media profile.

This is my first contribution to a "feminist" thread, so I'm clearly ignorant of things that seem obvious to you. I understand that some people are really sly and have bad intentions, but I tend not to assume the worst. Anyway, I'll keep my nose out of it from now on! 😉

@Brefugee, v interesting that German forums aren't as bad. My husband's from Eastern Europe and often remarks on the bad attitude of UK men towards women.

'It's not dissimilar to how abused people often go on to abuse. It doesn't make their actions ok, but understanding how their past experiences shape their actions is an important factor IMO.'

Yikes!

This is a rewrite of the feminists are women who have been abused by men and have an irrational dislike of all men as a result thing, I think.

Alce

'The UK has an in-your-face "boys' club sexist culture" which leads to certain perceptions about women and girls, a UN investigator into violence against women warned on Tuesday.

Special rapporteur Rashida Manjoo said there was "a more visible presence of sexist portrayals of women and girls" and a "marketisation of women's and girls' bodies" in the UK, which was more pervasive than elsewhere.

"Have I seen this level of sexist cultures in other countries? It hasn't been so in-your-face," she added.'

Having said that with stuff like abortion laws being pushed back in Poland, the situation with surrogacy in some areas and so on, I'd not agree that it's as simple as UK bad others good.

v interesting that German forums aren't as bad. My husband's from Eastern Europe and often remarks on the bad attitude of UK men towards women.

I've seen some absolutely vile German stuff on twitter - i was only referring to the replies i get about football, that is a lot better on German twitter/facebook than it is for the UK versions

For eg right now in Germany there is a lot of discussion about de-gendering (or to be more precise: inclusive gendering) the language. It's ... robust

@Brefugee ah shit 😟

I'm clearly in a blissfully ignorant little bubble!

@NiceGerbil, I really notice the difference in his culture. These scenes, from a birthday and a Xmas celebration, bring a smile to my face 😊

Just realised my reason for sharing those videos might take a bit of explaining 🤣 I was actually looking for another one that I can't find, a village celebration with everyone sitting round the table and all the old women singing... and the men smiling fondly and listening, taking pleasure in it. There seems to be no automatic impulse to stifle the women's voices, or to raise a patronising eyebrow, or to run out of patience.

QuentinBunbury I don't think that any suggestion that each of the sexes are "naturally better" at certain roles should automatically translate into a devaluation of women's roles. I agree that such arguments have often been used to ignore or oppress women.

I guess it depends on what outcome is more important - is it more important for roles that are stereotypically associated with women to be valued highly, respected, paid well etc on the same level as men's roles or is it more important to ensure women's and men's roles are split 50/50 at any cost?

A 50/50 split implies individual choices will have to be suppressed in favour of a predetermined overall outcome with no room for any kind of "imbalance". This means some women will have to be steered away from stereotypical women's roles even if it makes them unhappy and similarly for some men. I don't think such an approach would have long-term success.
It's more important for me that roles stereotypically associated with women are respected, valued and paid well. Certainly we should continue to challenge and critique stereotypes, especially harmful ones, and ensure women and men can make choices in their lives without negative repercussions. I'm less bothered by overall percentages as long as people are happy with their choices and feel supported, respected and valued for making them.

Absent fathers is not an issue caused by women or feminists, but if there is some evidence that lack of fathers or male role models increases the likelihood of boys and young men getting drawn into aggressive and violent behaviour, then I would think that this angle would seem pertinent to feminists given how much gets written and talked about male violence. As I said previously, I'm not saying it's up to feminism to solve such issues, but I've not really seen mainstream feminist discussion on this area. There's often talk about patriarchy which is probably why people outside of feminist circles might find it hard to relate to feminism because it's a vague concept while tackling issues around fatherlessness might seem more tangible and achievable? I dunno. I just find it intriguing that what seems like an important aspect in the discussion around male violence is missing.

How do you propose making unpaid care work as valued in society as paid careers nonny?

In terms of absent fathers, I don't think its fair to say feminists don't discuss it. Most feminists talk a lot about shared parental leave, shared childcare, flexible working which are all things that enable men to build close relationships with their children and therefore be less likely to walk away.

The problem is men don't take these things up, and there doesn't appear to be much censure of men who do opt out of fatherhood. Feminists can't make men do something they don't want to do.

The patriarchy is the social mechanisms that have grown up so that 1) unpaid care is expected to come from women and 2) its acceptable for men to leave their children. I really don't understand whats so difficult about it as a term. It means the systems and social structures that benefit men and disadvantage women.

Women are oppressed by misogynistic systems for eons.

Some of these women think "Fuck this" and push back and achieve the items listed by CrazyNeighbour. There's still a long long way to go but it's an amazing start. Note: these were achieved through the time and efforts of women.

Meanwhile some males feel disadvantaged as this means privilege which was once automatically theirs is no longer. Also some feminists mock them.

Feminism clearly needs to stop now.

Trite see I don't see it as feminists not wanting to understand/support male issues, I see this as feminists having * their time and energy sucked into fixing centuries of oppression. Whilst still being primary carers to kids and family. They're bloody exhausted.

And in terms of men being supporters of feminism and women's issues there are a few good examples of this however generally, sticking a "This is what a feminist looks like" T Shirt on, Brad Pitt style, doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

FWIW, I have no problem with International Men's Day and think it should be marked to address issues that specifically affect men.

I do find it extremely tedious when men ask 'when is it International Men's Day' every time IWD rolls around.

//// Absolutely this.

@NiceGerbil

Nonny you're not in favour of families with same sex parents then I'd guess?

What makes you say that?

If a lack of fathers / male role models seems to contribute to a trend of higher aggression and antisocial behaviour in younger men does that imply that sons from every family that do not have a male parent for whatever reason will join a gang or get involved in online MRA groups? No.

I continue to fail to see where there is any equivalence between misandry and misogyny. Men murder women at a rate of 2-3 each week in the UK.

Every. Single. Week.

When men hate women, they kill them.

In my experience, when women have strong negative feelings about men (I wouldn't even say hate, could even be mere ambivalence), their reaction is to avoid and ignore them.

When women are murdering men at similar rates that currently exist for women being murdered by men, I'll listen to misandry arguments. Until then idgaf. Too busy trying to help women not be murdered, or heal from trauma.

Such an excellent point WineAcademy

@QuentinBunbury

How do you propose making unpaid care work as valued in society as paid careers nonny?

I'm by no means an expert, but I think it might take several different methods and strategies.

I think as things stand, women will continue to end up with most of the caring responsibilities for the foreseeable future. Various schemes and policies will encourage more men to also take on this role, but I don't see many men doing this, in the same way I don't see many women signing up to be offshore oil rig workers, long haul lorry drivers or bin collectors.
For various reasons, whether you view them as good or bad, there's going to be an imbalance in the distribution of the sexes in certain roles and sectors.

It's important that women's (currently unpaid) contributions are consistently factored into economic outcomes. I know feminists have been doing good work in this area trying to improve recognition in budgets and GDP figures etc. It needs to become well-known how vital women's unpaid contributions prop up the rest of our society and economy. At the moment there's still resistance in this area.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to view women's caring roles through an exclusively monetised lens. We are already seeing the way pregnancy is being monetised through surrogacy. It's being viewed as a job like any other that one gets paid for. Capitalism cares not for the bonds between mother and her baby. Framing motherhood and caring roles as identical or equivalent to some kind of detached office job devoid of familial ties might lead to unpleasant consequences.
I'm no longer religious, but I still feel there is a certain 'sanctity' in the familial bonds and roles such as motherhood, fatherhood, looking after your elderly parents etc that no amount of money can or should buy.

So while I am reluctant to move towards women's caring roles being viewed as "paid work", I am well aware of the financial impact on women's lives because they may have to work part-time or give up working altogether. They are not only financially constrained in the present but also in the future due to fewer job prospects, lower pension contributions, longer life spans etc which lead to older women being more likely to live in poverty.
So maybe it's better to view things as a form of 'compensation' rather than 'payment'? I know the end result might be the same but how you word or frame something can impact how it's valued and perceived over time.

I think providing a basic income to all mothers (and fathers) who are unable to work or can only work part-time due to having children under 18 might be a good idea. Also government contributions towards national insurance and pensions for the period of unemployment. Similar for those caring for parents or partners etc.

I don't think what I've suggested is wildly different from what I've seen from feminists. It's probably the underlying premise that's different. So rather than framing caring roles as this horrible, oppressive imposition that all women need to be freed from, it's more of a 'ok some women may not be keen to take on such caring roles - how do we best support them , while other women might be fine with caring responsibilities for an extended period of time - how do we best support them as well so they aren't lagging behind financially in the long-term'.

Again, just thoughts off the top of my head rather than a fully worked out implementation.

QuentinBunbury I agree there should be much more censure of men who avoid or abandon their responsibilities of fatherhood. Bring back shame and stigma on deadbeat dads.

nonny I agree with what you say around compensation.
So rather than framing caring roles as this horrible, oppressive imposition that all women need to be freed from, it's more of a 'ok some women may not be keen to take on such caring roles - how do we best support them , while other women might be fine with caring responsibilities for an extended period of time - how do we best support them as well so they aren't lagging behind financially in the long-term'.
I don't think many feminists think being in a care-giving role is in itself oppressive. It is the fact that as you say society and the economy benefits from this unpaid labour, while the woman providing it is potentially financially dependent on someone else and therefore at higher risk of violence and abuse.

I don't agree with the comparison with long distance lorry drivers because that's a paid job that gives the man financial independence and doesn't bring any particular social and economic benefits above any other type of job. So it's a false equivalence to compare it with unpaid caring.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to view women's caring roles through an exclusively monetised lens.

The only way to get society to take caring roles seriously is to make the comparison with money. Because otherwise? nobody cares. There's a brilliant book, Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner?* which tracks how all the Brilliant Men Who Thought Of Brilliant Man Things could only do that because the women in their lives did absolutely EVERYTHING else for them and gave them the freedom to do that.

Wasn't it Mahler who was married to a female composer but forbade her from composing and made her sit in with him in admiring silence while he did His Great Manly Composing.

William Herschel is credited with discovering many stars etc, among them Uranus. He was able to do this because he made the biggest mirrored lens in existence. Which had to be polished and polished until there were absolutely no flaws. He lived with his sister Caroline who ran the house, made sure he ate and so on, and also wrote notebook after notebook full of observations of celestial bodies - that she was looking at. There is suspicion that it was she and not her brother that discovered Uranus but back during the time of George (III i think?) women were allowed credit for nothing.

And so on and so on and so on.

Anecdote time. Back when i was about 8, my brother was about 5, my dad worked full time, and my mum (who when they first met earned more as an hourly rate) worked part-time term time only. So the insurance chap turned up to talk about life insurance. He gave my dad a sum that he should insure his life for. Then asked about my mum. My dad reckoned about half of his life sum, because only part-time work etc. And the insurance chap said: well, mate, if she dies you need a cleaner, a cook/housekeeper and someone to look after the children. That is at least 2 people. How much do you think 24/7 care costs to look after 2 children? And promptly put my mum down as double that of my dad. That is how little valued women's work is, nobody cares until someone actually makes them think about it.

*Turned out it was his mum