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
Go take a look at the UN’s Twitter account on National Men’s day. Or I remember articles about how 1 in 4 homeless are women and it’s a tragedy for women. Honestly if you have seen articles like these before you’re either not reading many of them or you aren’t noticing what they are saying.
So an article, and some twitter comments. That’s not exactly “…most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men.”
How dishonest can you be? You specifically asked for a link to ANY of these. You got a response that gave you some examples, and you respond:
You didn’t ask for most of the articles and it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to provide you 50-100 links.
If you have a genuine disagreement with what they provided you should present that, but as it stands you’re being terribly dishonest and disingenuous.
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:
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:
The ones you were given.
No, they didn’t. They told you to look at a specific account on a specific day.
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.
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.
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.
Not ‘negative articles’, he said ‘most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men’ (emphasis mine.)
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.)
Yes, the articles were negative in their views.
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.
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?
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.