Why Single Men And Women Are More Politically Extreme

4 Shares

They say the personal is political. One look at the news – or the comments section on this blog – and it would be hard to deny. Which is why I found this article on How Single Men and Women Are Making Politics More Extreme so insightful.

“As we become freer, and our lives more complex, most people tend to become less gender fluid, not more: So the more liberal a country, the greater the difference between the sexes in their choice of professions, while more gender liberal countries also have larger sex difference in their math scores.

The more freedom we have, the more there will be very feminine and masculine subcultures too, and this might explain a great deal of recent political developments — in particular, the campus identity politics movement and the alt-right. The former is heavily female, while the latter is overwhelmingly male — in fact, not just male, but populated by men who seem to have difficulties with women.”

No disagreements so far. A lot of folks are surprised to find out that liberal countries have greater gender differences in their choice of professions. But it’s the result of free choice. Think of a coal miner’s gender. Think of a kindergarten teacher’s gender. That’s what happens when you allow people to choose their careers.

At the same time, the modern world is self-segregating. I hang out with all upper-middle-class suburban people. It wouldn’t be much of a surprise if single men and single women also spent most of their time with similar folks.

“So what happens when fewer people get married and, indeed, spend time with the opposite sex? Gender-segregated politics it seems.

In recent years there has been a steep rise in the proportion of female students, especially in the humanities, to such an extent that the imbalance has led to a shortage of marriageable men. It would seem logical, therefore, that already heavily left-leaning institutions filled with single women would be the perfect breeding ground for a forceful progressive movement, one in which members are in competition to display their political zeal.

In contrast, increasing numbers of men are moving into all-male worlds by dropping out of dating altogether. So while compared to Generation X, a larger proportion of millennials are engaging in more promiscuous sex, a larger number of them are also having no sex at all.

Freedom leads to sexual divergence — even in political movements.

Freedom leads to sexual divergence — even in political movements.

And that’s how we end up with Jezebel for women and the MGTOW movement for men. These are spaces for women to talk to other women (and not listen to men) and spaces for men to talk to other men (and not listen to women).

If I can say anything about the community we’ve created on of this blog, it’s that people like that don’t last very long here. I’m very proud of the readers who offer their insights – usually to speak their minds, but also to recognize that there’s always man or woman on the opposite side of the aisle whose feelings are equally legitimate.

Your thoughts, below, are greatly appreciated.

Join our conversation (32 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 1
    Buck25

    The climate on this blog is rather the way the American body politic used to be. That is to say there are often widely divergent views expressed, but there’s an atmosphere of tolerance, and an acceptance that those views which differ from ours, are legitimate and worthy of at least being heard, rather than being simply shouted down or dismissed out of hand. What we don’t do is believe that those who disagree with us must be horrible people

    That’s not the way American society on the whole is now, unfortunately. Politically, America appears to be split right down the middle, and it’s anything but a friendly split. How did we get here? I think part pf the answer lies in something Evan said a while back. I don’t remember the exact quote but it was to the effect that to see why America is so polarized, look to the rise of technology, especially texting and social media.That actually dovetails neatly with the rise of extremism reflected in the article Evan has cited here. One part of the issue is a paradox of communication; technology has made us more connected than ever, and yet more alienated than ever, all at once.

    Consider that now we routinely text rather than actually talk to someone on the phone. We email a co-worker what we could simply walk 3 cubicles over and tell them in person. I’ve actually seen young people sitting across a table, thumbs flicking over their phones, apparently not conversing at all, until one realized they were texting each other. We do it with everything, even the way we date; one flaw in internet dating (and even more so for the swiping apps) is that it’s an impersonal medium. All we have is a picture or two and a few words, and that’s how we choose. Social media is a mixed bag. On one hand it provides an opportunity for something like #MeToo to develop (I think most of us would call that a positive). However, the impersonal anonymity also lends itself to expressing extremism, and to extremists finding kindred spirits/recruits to their cause. That’s where this intersects with the way we self-segregate into groups of people who have the same interests and the same views.That’s an echo chamber, and it plays right into groupthink, identity politics, and more and more dividing our society by everything from race, to gender, to economic class, to national origin, to age, to educational level, to sexual orientation, to religion, to rural vs. urban and of course politics. Matter of fact, if there is a divide in America that someone isn’t fighting over, it’s hard to imagine what that might be.

    As the article says, most of the “gender war” has its origin on the campuses of colleges and universities, for the reasons the article explains. with women the majority on campus, politically correct “speech codes” (most of them rather clearly aimed at men, especially if they happen to be white), and to some extent left-wing political orthodoxy enforced in the classroom are now the norm of today. There is, on many campuses, no hint of either academic freedom, nor freedom of speech; in fact shouting down any speaker who expresses a contrarian view has been normalized. Dissent is often officially discouraged, especially for men, and often there is not even a hint of due process in disciplinary proceedings for male students (often for supposed “offenses” which wouldn’t even be frowned upon elsewhere). The message to men is simple: ” Toe the politically correct line, or you are not wanted here!” Men are increasingly opting out of academia in droves, unsurprisingly, and more to the point, they have started to align with blue collar men who feel marginalized, ignored, and until recently, politically powerless.They are increasingly anti-intellectual and anti-elitist, and more than a little angry with liberal/leftist women, and BOTH major political parties. That won’t sit well with many here but it is the truth of what has happened. Some joined the alt-right (mostly the internet version); most seem to have coalesced into a sort of populist movement that is composed o mostly blue collar, lower middle class and working class men, and women, mostly pro-life, who have rejected second and third-wave feminism. In other words, as college campuses radicalized young women, they also radicalized more than a few young men, but in the opposite direction. Now combine that with the impersonal nature of social media, and there’s a real problem, for in that setting, it becomes very easy to depersonalize and dehumanize those with opposing views, and we have in fact seen this happen; disagreement becomes dislike, then demonization of those one disagrees with, along with attributing malevolent intent to them in the process, until “THEY”, that amorphous faceless “THEY”, become the hated (and feared) “ENEMY”, who can’t be worked with, or compromised with, but must be defeated if not destroyed altogether. Such is the current state of our politics; the center has almost completely fallen away (centrists becoming an endangered species in both parties). Most of what’s left is led increasing by the loudest, and most radical voices, on BOTH sides. In effect what we have is a sort of cold civil war, with accusations. invective and hate fired back and forth from both sides.

    It used to be that people disliked one candidate or another. Now, it’s become common, if not quite normalized, to hate the people who voted for the candidate we dislike. People who don’t like Trump, often express hatred and contempt for those who support him. Trump supporters, in turn, feel the same way about the other side. No need to recount the name-calling, I think we all know what’s been said on both sides. It really doesn’t matter now who started it; the real question becomes, how do we stop it, or even if we can, in this overheated atmosphere. I don’t know, in the coming election, if the losing side will even acknowledge the legitimacy of the winning side, much less work with them (yes, no matter which side wins).

    1. 1.1
      Emily, to

      Buck25,
      The climate on this blog is rather the way the American body politic used to be. That is to say there are often widely divergent views expressed, but there’s an atmosphere of tolerance …”
      While I agree with you that there is, to an extent, a tolerance on this blog for other views, I think in general most of the opinions expressed, at least on the social side, are pretty moderate, mid-America. Politically, it mean lean a bit left but is not far left or “pink commie liberal’ as my friend used to say. 🙂

      1. 1.1.1
        Evan Marc Katz

        I’d like to think that the blog commenters are generally a reflection of the host.

        And, if it’s not clear, the host is a liberal/moderate (Love Warren but voted Buttigieg) who believes in freedom of speech and an atmosphere of tolerance.

        Any extremists, whether it’s left-wing women who read Jezebel or right-wing men who call themselves Red Pill, will generally not last too long here.

    2. 1.2
      Karl R

      Buck25 said:
      “Men are increasingly opting out of academia in droves,”

      Fact check:
      In 1993, 24.8% of U.S. males had a 4 year degree.
      In 1998, 26.5% of U.S. males had a 4 year degree.
      In 2003, 28.9% of U.S. males had a 4 year degree.
      In 2008, 30.1% of U.S. males had a 4 year degree.
      In 2013, 32.0% of U.S. males had a 4 year degree.
      In 2018, 34.6% of U.S. males had a 4 year degree.

      That includes men who also hold a higher degree. So according to the evidence, an increasing number of men have attended college. In addition, 54% of college professors are white men (at least as of Fall 2017).

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/
      https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

      Buck25 said:
      “There is, on many campuses, no hint of either academic freedom, nor freedom of speech; in fact shouting down any speaker who expresses a contrarian view has been normalized.”

      The Bill of Rights states:
      “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”

      That’s what first amendment guarantees. Nothing more. As an act of free speech, people have the right to shout (a form of speech) loudly enough that someone else’s words cannot be heard. It might be rude of them to do so, but it’s perfectly legal.

      1. 1.2.1
        Buck25

        Karl,
        Of course it’s not unlawful (or unconstitutional) to shout down one’s ideological opponents. For that matter, it is not unlawful or unconstitutional for a college or university to restrict free speech (whether among students or faculty) nor is it unlawful for them to deny any student due process in disciplinary matters. I’ve never asserted that; however, just because certain acts are legal and/or constitutional in academia, does not make them good or wise policy, or conducive to a well-rounded education of the students an institution of higher learning is supposed to serve

        It seems to me, that it would be desirable for college students to be exposed to a wide variety of ideas, including those with which they disagree, or even those they may find patently offensive. That is the very essence of real academic freedom; a free marketplace of ideas, where young minds can hear all sorts of ideas, and learn to think critically about those ideas. To restrict that marketplace of ideas to only those that students, faculty or administration find convenient to their own preconceptions, or which are currently popular or trendy, diminishes educational opportunity for the students. You might ask what good it does for students to never be exposed to ideas which may challenge what they believed before, or to hear only what they find agreeable. There is, after all, much to be learned by the process of defending ideas, or refuting them. Turn a university into an echo chamber, where only one point of view is allowed, and it becomes just like those places on the internet, where like minded individuals can reinforce each other’s beliefs, without any check or moderating influence from contrary or competing ideas. You have yourself laid out quite nicely where that leads; “its own toxic snowball of extremism”, I believe you called it.

        You know Karl, when I was in college many years ago, it was the ideas of the left which were often dismissed and silenced. I found that to be every bit as deplorable as the current situation, not because I agreed with those ideas (I emphatically did not), but because I believed they still ought to be heard, and discussed. After all, good ideas have nothing to fear from bad ones in an honest marketplace; let both stand or fall on their own merits (or lack of them). I believe both critical thinking and tolerance are among the greatest the greatest lessons to be learned in higher education.

        1. Karl R

          Buck25 said:
          “You know Karl, when I was in college many years ago, it was the ideas of the left which were often dismissed and silenced. I found that to be every bit as deplorable as the current situation,”

          Are you sure that you’re really seeing the current situation, rather than a handful of incidents that are being widely publicized by certain segments of the media (or social media) … segments who may have their own agenda?

          I found an article on Vox (link below). While I doubt this is an unimpeachable source (the author discusses criticism he received for a preceding article), the author is not relying on a handful of anecdotes to make a point. Instead, he describes the sources he relied upon and how he evaluated them.

          https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/31/17718296/campus-free-speech-political-correctness-musa-al-gharbi

          TL;DR – Out of the 4,000+ academic institutions in the U.S., the author found a few dozen incidents per year where speech was suppressed. Of those incidents, he found a minority involved conservative points of view.

        2. Buck25

          Karl,
          In reading the article you cited I find more uncertainty than certainty. In the case of both studies cited (Ungar and Sachs) one can’t really see how the original data was gathered, and what the criteria were. That’s particularly true of the Ungar study, but we also don’t know Sachs’ criteria for which faculty firings were political. What we have in the Vox piece is an opinion article about two studies, of which we don’t know anything except raw number of “incidents”. At that, I’d say 145 “incidents” (presumably within one year) is significant enough to be troubling, regardless of which side was affected. However, that is likely the tip of the iceberg; it’s not necessary for a university to act directly to suppress free speech, for it to have policies that may have a chilling effect on same. For instance, passively allowing one group of students to make another group fear being targeted for shaming, harassment, or the filing of false disciplinary complaints, obviously has a chilling effect on free speech for the targeted group. It’s not so much about what is done, as what is simply officially ignored. There is a study reported in The Atlantic, done by 3 professors at the University of North Carolina, which speaks to that issue, among others. this study appears to be reasonably objective, in that it reports some things that are encouraging, as well as some that are troubling. It was done by anonymously polling students on a number of campus political issues. I can quote you some of the findings of that study in another post, if you want them. It’s quite interesting in describing which groups self-censor their own speech/ideas in and out of class, and why they feel compelled to do so.

  2. 2
    Malika With an L

    A reminder that times have changed greatly was a rewatching of cinematic early-noughties masterpiece, ‘Maid in Manhattan’. The dashing romantic hero is -gasp!- a Republican WASP who falls in love with a feisty Latin-American chambermaid. Imagine this movie being greenlight nowadays…

    Regular moves and job changes exposed me to a far wider and diverse set of people than is usual. As a result I have developed a group of friends that must have no rhyme or reason to anyone that does not know my life story. By and large that group has stayed intact and it ranges from left wing gender and sexuality fluid green party vegans to righ-wing, conservative voting, why-can’t-things-stay-the same steak lovers, and everything in between. My birthday parties are either mildly uncomfortable or a blast, sometimes both, but never uneventful. 15 years ago I would regularly get praise on the fact that my group of friends was so diverse, nowadays i am often asked how I can stay friends with people who are such a detriment to society. By everyone.

    It saddens me that we are currently so walled off another, that we do not want to be exposed to opinions and lifestyles that differ from ours. Meeting people who are radically different from us can enrichen our lives and we can find out someone who opposes our views need not be life threatening. The echo chambers can also make it increasingly difficult to identify with our core beliefs. I am a staunch feminist, yet websites and facebook groups of certain collectives that routinely trash men and their experiences with blanket statements seem so insulting and distant from reality it is hard to take them seriously, even if very sound arguments are interspersed within some of their publications. Left-wing newspapers like The Guardian often talk of anyone who is not left wing as if they are imbecilic threats to humanity and the planet. I really like visiting this comments section, it’s an antidote to most other websites I visit throughout the day.

    Thankfully when it came to dating I nearly always connected to men who, even if they had views that differed from mine, were always willing to listen to my side and to engage in a healthy yet respectful debate. Online discussions are not the same as real life connections. My boyfriend aligns with a lot of my views, yet can also point out when i have a blind spot or have been influenced by an echo chamber (The Guardian has a lot to answer for!). While things may seem bleak now, I do believe the opposing camps will be able to hold a meaningful dialogue in time when there is an even greater awareness of the forces that currently influence our opinions. On a more mundane level than finding a solution to global warming, I believe that that growing dialogue will make heterosexual dating easier again in due time.

  3. 3
    Karl R

    In general, I found the article poorly thought out. The author attempted to infer causation through a series of correlations, without looking at counter-examples that might disprove his hypothesis.

    For example, let’s look at some previous times in history where political extremism was distinctly more extreme. Like when colonial revolutionaries and British loyalists were killing each other (often their neighbors) during the late 1700s. Or when the abolitionists and slaveholders were actively opposing each other. Or when French revolutionaries were introducing the nobility to Madame Guillotine. All of those were far more extreme than the current politics. None of those groups were divided on any gender basis. Single people likely made up a smaller percentage of the population in those societies (since people got married younger back then).

    The author also failed to look for alternate causes and explanations. I can’t address Jezebel (due to lack of knowledge), but I can talk about the incel and MGTOW “movements.” They appear to be an outgrowth of the internet. Single men who aren’t getting laid … that’s nothing new. For much of my 20s, my drinking buddies and I were generally not dating much. If none of us had gotten laid in the last 6 months, we were “having a dry spell.” But the internet allows thousands of guys to get together in the same virtual space and pretend that they’re an oppressed minority. When my buddies or I decided to take an extended break from dating, that’s how we characterized it. We didn’t try to turn it into some kind of social movement described by assorted colors of pills.

    Even if incels and MGTOW had existed as cohesive groups back then, my buddies and I wouldn’t have been interested in joining them. When I got together with my buddies (who weren’t getting any either) we were more interested in talking about our common interests, cracking jokes, or telling funny stories. The incels and MGTOW aren’t extreme because they’re single men. They’re not extreme because single men can congregate in large virtual groups. They’re extreme because any single man (even the really, really single men) with a lick of sense actively avoids hanging around that kind of self-pitying environment. There are no moderating voices, so the entire environment becomes its own toxic snowball of extremism.

    1. 3.1
      jo

      Karl R, here I would agree with you about the poor quality of the article. Evan, how reliable a news source is ‘The Week’? Sadly, this one article does it no credit. This article stated the wrong result from a PLOS ONE study that it links. It claimed that in more gender liberal nations, there were bigger sex differences in maths scores, whereas the PLOS ONE paper did not show that at all. Rather, it showed that in more gender liberal nations, both males and females had less maths anxiety, but that the decrease in anxiety was not as steep for females as it was for males as a function of gender liberality.

      Also, it is a massive stretch to claim that because there are more female liberal arts students, there are fewer marriageable men. I looked everywhere in the article for a supporting statement for this illogical claim, and could find none. It’s like stating that oranges are becoming less orange because apples are diversifying their colours now.

      Buck25, I agree with you that there is a good deal more civility in these comments in general than there is in the political landscape in America today, particularly as expressed on social media that then gets shared around the world. And I conclude, as you do, that in part it’s because people are not talking eye to eye anymore, rather, putting at least one barrier between them (whether it be a social media platform, email, texts, etc.). THAT disconnection matters far more than gender liberality or marital status today.

      1. 3.1.1
        Emily, to

        Jo,
        “Also, it is a massive stretch to claim that because there are more female liberal arts students, there are fewer marriageable men. ”
        I went to a college known for being very liberal and most of the students graduated with liberal arts degrees. This was 20 years ago, and the student body was largely women and gay men. I’m suspecting it’s probably skewing even more so now. So, yes, there were very few marriageable men. At least there.There were very few stratight guys. And the straight guys with even a shred of game could have any woman they wanted. They had no competition.

        1. jo

          Hi Emily – my point was that there should be no assumption that these women are limited to marrying among the people with whom they went to college. Most women these days do not marry in college, after all. So the nature of their colleges does not limit them in the world of marriage.

        2. Emily, to

          Jo,
          “Most women these days do not marry in college, after all. So the nature of their colleges does not limit them in the world of marriage.”
          Yes, you’re absolutely right. But if you’re a woman who gravitates to the humanities, you will probably end up with the same crowd in your career that you had in college … tons of women, a few gay men and one or two straight (but very beta) men. (I’m making a sweeping statement, but there’s some truth it.) So humanities women will need to make a concerted effort to get out of their immediate circle and try new things, which will probably be stuff they aren’t naturally interested in.

        3. MilkyMae

          I went to a large state school little over 20 years ago. I think there was more men than women. Back then a boyfriend was still part of the college experience. You got a starter boyfriend your first year and then hopefully a long term boyfriend your senior year. All the women I knew were pursuing a career. None were majoring in MRS although their was a distant hope. Back then, if you wanted a squeeze, you would go to a party, have a drink liquid courage and just bump into cute guys. Eventually you got a boyfriend and you didn’t feel stupid for trying.
          Today, I think it is much different. It’s great that women are attending college in record numbers but I hope they gathering memories and not settling for casual intimacy. Although they are in charge of their lives, I hope they are not studying to be single workplace drones or extreme debtors. You can be in a relationship and still pursue a bucket list. Being young, carefree and in love can be the happiest time of your life.

        4. Emily, to

          MilkyMae,
          “I went to a large state school little over 20 years ago. I think there was more men than women. Back then a boyfriend was still part of the college experience”
          I, too, was in college over 20 years ago, but because there were so few straight men, very few of the girls had boyfriends. Lots of FWBS and “I don’t want to put a label on it.” It was a school of very intellectual but very socially awkward people. Very few jocks, but at the time I thought that was a good thing. I don’t know why. 🙂

        5. jo

          Emily, MilkyMae, it was the same experience with me (probably a few years later than you), except for your comment about how there were so few straight men, Emily. Do you mean just in your field of study, or at your whole college? Maybe there are more straight people in STEM fields (if so, why?), but equally socially awkward.

          I had the same experience as you, Emily, in thinking at the time that it was good that our school didn’t have many jocks – but now think quite differently, and realise that not only are men who do sports attractive, they can be smart and knowledgeable and nice. 🙂

        6. Emily, to

          Jo,
          “Do you mean just in your field of study, or at your whole college?”
          The college as a whole. Super hippie liberal arts.
          “Maybe there are more straight people in STEM fields (if so, why?), but equally socially awkward.”
          There obviously were STEM fields. They just weren’t popular. English, philosphy, religion. Those were the big ones.
          “:… but now think quite differently, and realise that not only are men who do sports attractive, they can be smart and knowledgeable and nice. ”
          I don’t care about knowlegeable and nice. Jocks tend to be more masculine. I just don’t have as much in common with jocks.

        7. MilkyMae

          The problem with jocks at college is that there’s not enough of them and they are super popular. When I was in college, the athletes who played on a college team were rock stars. The bench warmers and the ones who played in less followed sports like lacrosse or baseball were accosted in class, at parties, in the dining hall, even outside locker rooms after games… If you can turn heads, you still had to compete with co-ed groupies. Plus, if you beat the odds, it probably won’t last long. Male college athletes had a new set of teenage admirers every semester.

  4. 4
    sylvana

    I think the political divide stems mostly from the fact that our current politicians tend to lean toward the extremes, rather than staying fairly moderate within their own party lines. As an independent, it seems the healthy middle has completely disappeared. As for the divide, in general, I don’t think it has ever been that much different. But we’re no longer forced to tolerate people who we don’t agree with whatsoever. You can live your life the way you want to, I’ll live mine the way I want to, and we’ll all be happy. There is not longer a reason for all the fake niceties and backstabbing later (although you can still observe a heck of a lot of that in “high society”).

    I can’t really follow the logic of the article. Let’s take the college, for example. Nowadays, there are more women than men. Ok. Who stopped men from attending college? How is it women’s fault that there are less marriageable men (and why are they less marriageable) if men are the ones who chose not to attend college? Once again, no one is stopping men from doing so. Women didn’t force men out of college. They didn’t take men’s spots.

    I also don’t understand the less gender fluid thing. How is a woman who owns her own house, pays her own bills, has her own career, provides for herself, takes care of everything herself any different from a man who does exactly the same? What is the different between a woman working and paying the bills and a man working and paying the bills? How is that not gender fluid? A greater gender divide would mean women breed and raise child after child and stay at home and men provide. Which really isn’t the case anywhere in nature.

    As for the careers, what do we measure that against? Countries where women have no rights and are expected to assume certain roles? We can hardly say that women with less rights choose more male-dominated fields, since that would be impossible. Likewise, there are certain fields in freer countries that tend to be more female or male dominated, but the vast majority of work/careers tend to have a fairly equal mix of men and women. And the freer we get, the more women are moving into male-dominated fields (and men into female dominated fields).

    Let’s take the job of secretary, for example. If you would have told people in England a few hundred years ago that a woman would ever be a secretary, they would have laughed you out of the room. Only MEN could be secretaries. Women weren’t capable of such work. Nowadays, I don’t know if there even is such a thing as a male secretary. Somehow, it has become a “woman’s” field of work.

    I think the biggest case to proof that freer nations have more gender fluidity is by looking at “traditional” roles. Birth rates and stay-at-home mothers. It is obvious that when given a choice, the majority of women chose to leave the house and have less children. Sure, some of them due to circumstance. But necessity was not was pushed women into the workforce and into having less children to begin with.

    And yes – obviously, the freer people are, the freer they are to show their true colors, rather than pretend to be someone they’re not. That doesn’t mean people overall have changed. They always felt the same. Extremists have always existed. They simply weren’t allowed to express their views.

    Buck25

    Colleges are pretty much businesses. As a business, they’re pretty much focused on keeping what makes the majority of their customers happy. If the majority of the customers paying your bills are liberals, you’re not going to cater to the minority. Once again, this is not so much the fault of women, but rather an issue with there not being enough men (especially conservative/right wing/republican men) interested in going to college. Hence the reason Evan is a coach for women instead of men. The few men willing to get coaching wouldn’t pay the bills. I also have to say that most of us independents often get totally overlooked. We’re often thrown into the category of liberals.

    And I don’t doubt for a moment that the white male feels the effects of the shifts the most. He’s enjoyed the upmost privileges without ever having to earn them for centuries. How did someone put it – when previously priveleged people loose their special rights and true equality arises, the person who previously enjoyed privileges suddenly begins to feel oppressed. They’re not longer special and enjoy extra rights just because they’re male and white. They actually have to earn status now, like everyone else.

    The other interesting part is that I don’t see this being so much of an issue in a lot of European countries. It seems to be more the conservative and traditional culture countries where the while male feels oppressed.

    .

    1. 4.1
      jo

      Sylvana, I agree with almost everything you wrote here, and appreciate how you articulate it so well. The one part with which I disagree (or would add another thought) is about makes colleges lean toward liberality. At the fear of ruffling feathers, I’ll say: At least in North America, higher education peddles in knowledge – and liberals tend to respect knowledge more, whereas conservatives tend to respect faith more. (Come to think of it, this might be true everywhere in the world, not just North America.) Can we say, climate science? Not to mention, beliefs about gender abilities, homosexuality, environmental sustainability, and (sadly) even evolution vs. creationism.

      1. 4.1.1
        sylvana

        Jo,

        I wasn’t about to open that can of worms…haha. But I fully agree with you.

    2. 4.2
      Buck25

      “…the white male feels the effects of the shifts the most. He’s enjoyed the utmost privileges without having to earn them for centuries …They’re not longer special and enjoy extra rights just because they’re male and white. They actually have to earn status now, like everyone else”.

      Sylvana,
      As much as I appreciate the majority of your posts (and the bulk of this one), I have to disagree with that. By the way, that’s not what many reasonable advocates of the concept of “white male privilege” assert at all. Most will acknowledge that poor and rural white males don’t see the word “privilege” as anything that belongs to them. If you don’t believe that, ask the impoverished white man eking out a living sharecropping in the rural South (yes, I can introduce you to quite a few; that is a bit more common down here than you might like to believe). By the way, ever been to Appalachia? I have. Go into one of those mountain hollows, or mining towns, and tell any white male coal miner there how much “white male privilege” you think he enjoys (of course he might not looks so white, cause the only thing blacker than his face from coal dust is his lungs). A lot of Appalachia is like that; a place of grinding poverty and as hopeless as the worst ghetto or barrio, and about as easy for those trapped there to escape from. Big city people don’t generally know that of course; white poverty is rural poverty, out in flyover country, way off the interstate, where the TV cameras don’t go to tell the story; so to most city people, it’s literally invisible; out of sight and out of mind. So of course, they believe no white man ever struggles, or has to wonder where his family’s next meal is coming from; why, only people of color and single mothers have to worry about that! Isn’t that the narrative? Of course it is, until you have to actually see that “invisible” reality, and realize that what you thought you “knew” really isn’t true.

      By the way, Sylvana, you may be surprised to know that white men who achieve success, status, or whatever, DO have to actually earn it. Not every white male is born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Not all are the sons of billionaires, or millionaires, or upper middle class professionals, or even middle class people. The only way a white male has anything given to him, is if he inherits it. and it’s that part, not the other stuff you said, that is legitimately “white male privilege” I.e. the ability to acquire, own, and pass on wealth/property. It’s that which gives white males an economic head start over women and people of color, because people of color, and women, were denied that ability under law for so long. However, that means little except to the white man who is born into the middle class, upper middle class, or the upper class. To the white male born into the lower classes, that’s essentially worthless, since his family before him couldn’t earn enough to own much of anything.

      1. 4.2.1
        sylvana

        Buck25,

        interesting discussion 🙂 I’ve spent the last 20 years living in the rural South of America. And by rural, I mean rural. We’re talking redneck and hillbilly heaven. And personally, I think nowhere is white male privilege as prevalent as in the rural South, and in rural America, in general.

        Privileges is not necessarily about them having great jobs handed to them. It’s mostly about how they treat others. Mainly women, those weaker than them, and men of other colors. You go ahead and try to go against the “good-ole-boy” network and see what you get. If you’re anything other than a white male, they will ruin you.

        Part of the reason those men don’t get anywhere is because they refuse to get out of their archaic mindsets. Instead of trying to adjust to changing times, they hang on to the way things “should” be, to hate, racism, the never-ending attempts to intimidate and oppress. I swear, half the time I want to take a brick and try to knock some sense in to their heads. And I love these “boys”, I really do.

        As I said, I lived in that rural, rural (we’re talking boondocks) southern culture for almost 20 years. There is a lot to love about those values and lifestyles. But more times than I can count, something will come out of their mouth that makes me start and go “what 21st century human thinks that way?” It’s mindboggling.

        It pains me to say that in the last few years, with the current political climate, the people I used to call friends and cared about and always defended, I’m now starting to consider straight up primitive.

    3. 4.3
      Bbq

      The evidence would suggest that women being at college has made college more undesirable to men. Whether that’s because of their own sexism or whether women have somehow changed college in a way that makes it undesirable to men is open to debate (tho I think the arguments on both side are gonna be a fairly wide split by gender).

      Or perhaps the world open to men after attending college has simply become undesirable to them, to the point that that unlocking the door to that world with the metaphorical key of a college degree has now becoming a worthless act in their eyes.
      Again arguments can be made whether that is because of their own sexism or otherwise.

      If the latter is true and men (and imo not just white men, I in fact I think the constant use of white men only in feminist language is an attempt to divide and basically create enforcers for their own ideas) don’t see a desirable future being unlocked by a degree, but as u suggest they still desire status, they will find other ways to seek it and likely they as a group will eventually be successful.
      What will happen when attending college is a woman’s role only?

  5. 5
    MilkyMae

    Are single men who embrace softer, female-centric views highly valued? I would say sometimes. However, I think if these men were truly sought after, we would have more of them. When women have freedom and power, they frequently want a more attractive man(ie more masculine) and not necessarily a warm, “flower show” type of man. A dream man is frequently a manly man who can be coaxed into smelling flowers. On the other side, it seems like men who retreat into their male world don’t want to live up to hyper masculine standards and they think a softer approach is futile. I know women who dismissed men because the men ordered a vegetarian dish on a date.

    BTW. It’s kind of silly when the author implies men are having difficulties but women are not.

  6. 6
    Charly

    The so-called MGTOW movement features some truly repellent views on women (the rabbit hole that ends in a roast beef metaphor is one anyone might spare themselves).

    Jezebel certainly leans left and “you-go-girl,” but doesn’t habitually denigrate men and their genitalia.

    1. 6.1
      Bbq

      Jezebel would appear truly hateful and extreme to the average man on the street (note: this is not the average man on political twitter). Don’t kid yourself otherwise.

  7. 7
    Charly

    This is why I’m done dating men. They’re so fragile.

    1. 7.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      And that doesn’t work both ways? Only one way? Against the opposite sex? Got it.

  8. 8
    Charly

    I think the both sides ism is a false equivalency in this case. I just looked at the Jezebel.com home page for reference: factual headlines about the Harvey Weinstein sentencing, coronavirus, and my Alma Mater’s wobliness on how to integrate its LGBT students (spoiler: not well!). The only headline that seemed to punch below the belt was aimed at Biden, but that’s no more extreme than what I hear in plenty of Democratic focused debates offline. It’s not an attack on Biden because he’sa man per see, nor is the sure encouraging a sort of second wave lesbian separatist revolution.

    MGTOW on the other hand allies with serial killers and calls women’s labia roast beef. I hardly think that is representative of all men, but they’re WAY over represented in single men of my millennial generation.

    Not wanting to deal with the very real possibility of domestic violence or demeaning sexual comments from strange men seems like a logical trade off to me at this point in my life. After all, I went to BYU, it’s not like I don’t know how to search for a husband should I want to.

    No strain of feminism, least of all an ironic capitalist one, encourages violence or demeaning language towards men as a class.

    1. 8.1
      Bbq

      I’m not MGTOW of red pill or any of that Shiz, but I have seen some of it and there are varying levels of anger and delusion within it, as well as some truth. As there is in femininism. After all there are academic feminists who theorise about reducing men to 20% or the population (the origin of saying “the future is female”) and who truly believe consensual sex between a man and a woman is impossible because of “power dynamics”.

      It’s not all of them of course but they exist, Like I said I don’t care too much for the underlying philosophy of “red pill” but I have seen enough of it to know that not all people who make “red pill” or “Motown” (or similar in that vein) are as bad as your generalising them to be now. Many are simply the flip side of the same coin as women who make content about their own struggles due to their gender, at least as they see it. Some of it is simply observation.

      It seems as tho your just salty because the thing you identify with is being called out and you don’t want to see it through other people’s eyes. I’m sure mgtowers and red pillars have a similar reaction as well. I find it distasteful to use the term “roast beef” about women, but I’m sure somewhere on Jezebel or similar there have been jokes about castration and such. But those are just jokes of course.

      And calling men an “oppresser class” and the good ol “white men” as the pinnacle of oppressors can easily be seen as demeaning and possibly even encouraging violence, if you follow thru on the logic behind it. Women just do their most effective violence differently than men, that is, by the proxy of the law.

  9. 9
    Bbq

    That’s Mgtow not Motown lol. But Stevie Wonder weren’t that bad either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *