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

  • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    No, they didn’t. They told you to look at a specific account on a specific day.

    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.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        OP had mentioned feminists being bad at PR and then mentioned negative articles.

        Not ‘negative articles’, he said ‘most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men’ (emphasis mine.)

        and an article they remembered seeing

        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.)

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not ‘negative articles’, he said 'most articles

          Yes, the articles were negative in their views.

          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.

          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.

          Caitlin Moran even wrote a damn novel on issues and challenges facing straight, white, able-bodied men that need to be solved.

          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?

          If feminist PR sucks, you’re reading right-wing articles/twitter posts/apparently reddit posts according to another post of theirs.

          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.

          • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yes, the articles were negative in their views.

            We’re on day two of not a single link from him or you. I’m done with this, if you want to keep screaming to the winds that ‘most feminist articles are…’ then prove it.