politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So the proportion isn't vastly bigger, only about 7%. Also men are much more likely to be the victims of violence generally.
And the proportion doesn't matter either. All victims of violence deserve help and empathy. Otherwise, the argument is that "minority victims don't matter". LGBTQ folks also deserve help and support tailored to their needs, despite being a relative minority.
I agree with you on this entirely
Good point, however there is more to this situation than the raw numbers. Women are a minority and simply face a different kind of oppression and violence. I mean think about women's health outcomes, anti-abortion legislation, etc. Plus, you can break those statistics down further. ~~By the time they're 17, 1/3 of women have experienced a rape or attempted rape, whereas the same is true for 1/4 of men.~~ 1/3rd of women rape victims experience it before age 17, whereas the same is true of 1/4 of male rape victims.
In reality, only 2.6% of men reported ever being raped, which even accounting for underreporting utterly pales in comparison to 18% of women.
Source: https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
Regardless, just because one thing is maybe more prevalent than another doesn't mean the other isn't a problem. I do not mean to downplay violence in any form against anyone.
What I mean is focusing on violence against women isn't inherently an issue, and I don't think that's what is driving young men toward conservatism. We can focus on more than one thing at once. I think that conservatism empowers young men, elevates them. It is the path of least resistance for most because men-on-top is ingrained deeply in our society. I think that young men are gravitating to the most attractive worldview presented to them, no matter how selfish and regressive it is because it feels right.
EDIT: I got the stats wrong.
Are they? Last I checked, women were actually the majority across most of the world by a very slight edge, mostly because men die earlier since hard physical labour and wars disproportionately kill men.
Why bring it up then? What's the point?
If they face a different kind of violence, that would imply men face a different kind of violence, too, right? If they are different from each other, that means both sexes need special attention on issues disproportionately affecting them, don't they?
The problem is not "focusing on women's issues". The problem is "not focusing on men's issues".
Women are a social minority. Whites in South Africa who perpetuated the apartheid were the majority oppressing a minority, despite being vastly outnumbered. I am referring to sociological minorities, not statistical.
I edited my comment. The numbers are far more disparate than I initially misread. I only brought it up because we're getting into specifics and I had to do some research. Women are indeed more affected by sexual violence. What's more, over 90% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men.
Definitely.
This is fair, but it sounded to me like you were implying this was a zero sum game. We can do both.
My primary assertion is that conservatism (and figures like Tate) is attractive to young men because they reinforce what society has taught for their whole lives, and if not, then it's at least a power fantasy that places them in control, which is preferable to the alternative. Reality (which some refer to as "wokeism" or "leftism") is not as tantalizing. Realizing that you as a man have implicit biases, privilege, and toxicity embedded deep within you requires a level of introspection and empathy that most young people do not possess.
I struggle to see how "the left" can capture the minds of young men in the same way when taking an objective view of reality.
This is such a problematic statistic to bring up. It means nothing to the victims and their needs, or how should we help them. It also doesn't matter from a prevention point of view, since the vast majority of men are not rapists. It only serves to reframe the issue from "abusers against victims" to "men against women".
What is that alternative, then? That's the problem, I do not see anyone proposing an alternative role to men in society.
I dont think it is problematic in itself. I am merely pointing out that my previous statements about the disparities between men and women were correct.
The mentality is certainly "abusers vs victims," but we cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore the context. I.e. we must recognize that most rapists are men. Most rape victims are women. Why this is the case is important to examine if we are to improve things.
Why do men need a "role" in society specifically? Is it the case that men simply feel aimless and this leads them to conservatism? To violence, even? I don't know. I don't think women go about feeling assured about their role in society which in turn makes them end up more liberal. Why would the inverse be true for men?
Again, this isn't to say we don't need support for young men or that they are never victimized. The only messages I can think of are: acknowledge and understand your privilege, act with empathy, emotions are important and should be discussed, etc. Way less sexy than shooting boar from a helicopter with a minigun or whatever it is men's role in society boils down to.