Fifth of men aged 16-29 look favourably on social media influencer Andrew Tate

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

  • @CharAhNalaarEnglish
    0•4 months ago

    Replace “woman” with “Black” in this rant and it sounds just like someone trying to make reparations look bad by strawmanning its supporters.

    I agree that neoliberal capitalism has (largely successfully) used feminism as a way to distract from society’s real problems. But this ain’t it.

    • @Aceticon
      5•4 months ago

      You can just as easilly replace “women” there with “the arian race” and suddenly find out that my post is a critique of the social side of Nazism that would apply even before they started exterminating people when all their messaging was about “protecting the arian race”.

      If you’re deeming people worthy/victims or unworthy/aggressors merelly on their genetics rather than on their actions and what they support, you’re part of the problem because you’re being prejudiced rather than fair - by judging people on externally visible genetic differences you end up de facto protecting bad people when they have the genetics of those you deem victims and treating badly good people when they have the genetics of those you deem agressors.

      It doesn’t matter what “genetically defined group” you put in there because there will always be good people and bad people amongst them and if they can the bad people in that group will do exactly what the bad people amongst Feminists are doing: use the goodwill of others who see the world in an oversimplified prejudiced way, to maximize personal upsides, and along with them drag many from the neutral middle who see an opportunity for personal gain, so they gladly jump on the bandwagon.

      (In simple terms, every group of people defined by things that have nothing to do with their actual actions, contains assholes and lots of people who will easilly turn into one if they come out better of by doing so).

      That’s why one fights actual actions of unequal and/or unfair treatmente and do so no matter the “genetic makeup” of the victim and the aggressor - it’s the acts themselves that are wrong, not the chromossomes with externally visible expressions of the victims and aggressors.