A cultural shift might be necessary — one that views politics as a part of people’s identity but far from the most important part. Americans’ ability to live together, quite literally, might depend on it.
Their suggestion to enact a cultural shift that deprioritizes politics does not actually address the problems with being a chud (the misogyny being one component of that), thus having to compromise/make peace with it is the logical conclusion of their suggestion. Compromise in general suggests that both sides of a dispute are making concessions towards each other, when in reality it’s the chuds who need to stop being ghouls. This would also fall in line with the larger media trend of telling liberals to move to the right. The WaPo article itself is more subtle about this than explicit, but I do not think the headline of the FAIR article is inaccurate.
Yeah media is still acting like we’re in an era where political disagreements are still a matter of differing politics instead of the modern issue of completely divergent moralities.
Whether one believes that the lives of women are morally considerable, for example! (or best case scenario - worth as much as whatever tax savings one thinks they’ll reap 😒)
Oh yeah totally. It’s just ~*politics*~ and not at all a reliable determinant of whether your potential partner will treat you as an equal🙄
A cultural shift might be necessary — one that views politics as a part of people’s identity but far from the most important part. Americans’ ability to live together, quite literally, might depend on it.
Their suggestion to enact a cultural shift that deprioritizes politics does not actually address the problems with being a chud (the misogyny being one component of that), thus having to compromise/make peace with it is the logical conclusion of their suggestion.
Exactly. It’s the same shit of “People are so polarized these days! Why can’t they put politics aside and get along?” when the “politics” in question are where one group thinks entire swathes of people shouldn’t be allowed to exist and are working diligently to strip up of our civil and human rights. That’s not a difference of opinion, and there’s not two sides here to compromise.
And wrt marriage, if a large group of men are going down alt-right/MRA/etc. rabbit holes, then it’s not the fault of potential partners to be completely put off by that. It’s not a difference of opinion, its a difference of morality.
I do not think the headline of the FAIR article is inaccurate.
Bullshit. At no point does the article tell women to compromise with misogyny. That is what the (un)fair title says and that is a lie.
That said, I do agree that there are subtle messages throughout society that women ought to do the compromising, ‘boys will be boys’ and all kinds of other BS. It is wrong, it ought to change, it is there. Still, it isn’t fair to make all those implications and accusations the fault and sole responsibility of the Washington Post. Regarding political ‘sides’, the WaPo piece pointed out:
Unfortunately, Americans have not equipped themselves to discuss, debate and reason across these divides. Americans have increasingly sorted themselves according to ideological orientation. They are working, living and socializing with people who think the same things they do.
Can we agree that sensationalistic media coverage is generally a bad thing? I remember a time before FOX – a time when journalism was supposed to be unbiased – and the headline here is just as bad as some of mis-spun crap I’ve seen there (like referring to undocumented as ‘criminals’ to promote the idea that cities are not safe).
Bullshit. At no point does the article tell women to compromise with misogyny. That is what the (un)fair title says and that is a lie.
They do though (subtly), as it’s the logical conclusion of their stupid suggestion. Just because they didn’t smack you in the face with it doesn’t mean they’re not doing it.
That said, I do agree that there are subtle messages throughout society that women ought to do the compromising
I’m glad you agree, as this WaPo article is one such example. Gonna reiterate though that compromise involves both parties making concessions.
Still, it isn’t fair to make all those implications and accusations the fault and sole responsibility of the Washington Post.
No one is doing that? The WaPo article in question is just one particular example of many of this phenomenon.
Can we agree that sensationalistic media coverage is generally a bad thing?
I mean, sure, but it’s not really relevant to the conversation here. Also, I hate to break it to you, but:
I remember a time before FOX – a time when journalism was supposed to be unbiased
Manufacturing Consent was first published in 1988 and used examples from the 1960s to make their case, which predates the existence of Fox News by several decades. “Unbiased journalism” has not been a thing for at least 60 years, if it ever existed at all. Shit’s worse now, don’t get me wrong, but it was never actually good during most of our lifetimes and looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses is not going to produce an accurate picture.
and the headline here is just as bad as some of mis-spun crap I’ve seen there (like referring to undocumented as ‘criminals’ to promote the idea that cities are not safe).
This is just ridiculous hyperbole. Following a suggestion to its logical conclusion is nowhere near as bad as intentionally smearing marginalized groups in order to incite state violence (and maybe some stochastic terrorism) against them.
Look, we should be on the same side. The most obvious thing missing from the piece was that some people might choose a same sex marriage. I think there might also be something about happiness and longevity differences between the sexes such that marriage is a great deal for men, but not so much for women – but I don’t remember enough details to back that up with anything, I simply noted the absence of statistics on if men or women had any difference in their level of happiness in a not-so-great marriage versus being single (because I think I remember something like that, but I’m not sure).
Anyway, I’m aware that journalism has never uniformly reached its own ideal of unbiased factual reporting, and because of that, I try to keep track of who is spinning things in which direction. Heck, Yellow Journalism became a phrase more than 100 years ago. Today’s drive for clicks and eyeballs means “spin” becomes a frequent, nigh on incessant issue. If no one calls it out, people might think their trusted source is spouting a ‘truth’ that the mainstream media refuses to publish for fear of their stockholders. Fox viewers and their ilk would certainly tell you the WaPo piece is attempting to take away their guns and turn ‘Mr. Burly Man’ into ‘Mr. Yes Ma’am’. When you tell them they’re delusional, they pull a what-about-ism on sites like FAIR for doing the same thing in reverse. As you rightly point out, the conservative side is typically more outrageous than the liberal side, but I don’t want to give them ANY ammunition! These people think commies and fascists are the same thing and that their glorious orange leader is neither.
So, perhaps it is unfair of me to hold Democracy Now and FAIR and a bunch of other sources to a higher standard than, say, FOX and NEWSMAX but those latter two fail to reach the lowest of bars. They lie and spin and rarely offer opinions that acknowledge any validity to another point of view. We know how conservative sites manipulate the narrative. Is it asking too much that more liberal sites refrain from stooping to their level? All they had to do was make a title like, “Veiled WaPo Nudge to Women: If You Want Marriage, Compromise With Misogyny.” Too wordy? How about, “WaPo Hints: Ladies, If You Want to Marry, Try Misogynists.” Better? It is the same sentiment without the lie that “WaPo tells Women,” which is too gross an overstatement for me to let slide.
It strains my credulity a bit that the only single thing you’re actually taking issue with is their use of “tells” rather than “hints/insinuates/nudges”. That single word is not making any difference to the impact of the original OR critique articles, as it is, in all colloquial use, a synonym.
That user you’re replying to really seems to struggle with thinking through ideas. They’re probably the type that would have fallen for Southern Strategy.
Look, we should be on the same side. The most obvious thing missing from the piece was that some people might choose a same sex marriage. I think there might also be something about happiness and longevity differences between the sexes such that marriage is a great deal for men, but not so much for women – but I don’t remember enough details to back that up with anything, I simply noted the absence of statistics on if men or women had any difference in their level of happiness in a not-so-great marriage versus being single (because I think I remember something like that, but I’m not sure).
I don’t see what this has to do with anything I said.
but I don’t want to give them ANY ammunition!
It really doesn’t matter if you do or not, as they’re liars and morons who will use their media apparatus to manufacture outrage if they can’t find something organically.
So, perhaps it is unfair of me to hold Democracy Now and FAIR and a bunch of other sources to a higher standard than, say, FOX and NEWSMAX but those latter two fail to reach the lowest of bars. They lie and spin and rarely offer opinions that acknowledge any validity to another point of view. We know how conservative sites manipulate the narrative. Is it asking too much that more liberal sites refrain from stooping to their level? All they had to do was make a title like, “Veiled WaPo Nudge to Women: If You Want Marriage, Compromise With Misogyny.” Too wordy? How about, “WaPo Hints: Ladies, If You Want to Marry, Try Misogynists.” Better? It is the same sentiment without the lie that “WaPo tells Women,” which is too gross an overstatement for me to let slide.
I would say that the unfair part is the bullshit false equivalence you’re drawing here, because again, pointing out the logical conclusion of their suggestion is neither lying nor producing spin. It is the practical result of taking their suggestion. Women will end up compromising with misogyny if they do what WaPo told them to do, so they are effectively telling them to do that. You’re trying to nitpick over something dumb. The headline is fine as is.
Article tells women to compromise with Republicans
But, no, it does not. Verbatim, it says, “This mismatch means that someone will need to compromise.”
If you were someone like Rush Limbaugh, you would tell the right that this is another example of Bezos using his media spin machine to disenfranchise conservative men, calling them stupid, unsuitable and telling them they have to compromise. Rush would never tell them the piece said no such thing and they’d never read the source to see for themselves.
FAIR could have written an article that explained that POV as well and described included details left out, but instead chose to rile up the left with half statements the same way the right would do.
I apologize for being so bothered by this, but I have to deal with relatives who are conservatives as a matter of Faith. Their church friends won’t hear reason so they won’t either UNLESS it is broached in an extremely fair and unbiased manner. Sometimes I can give them a nudge in such a situation, but not the way FAIR is doing here.
Except that, as this article pointed out, it’s not Republican men who are refusing to date liberal women, so there is only one group whose “compromise” would affect this situation, and it’s the women’s.
You are trying to make something of the original op-ed not explicitly stating that it’s women who must compromise, and ignoring that in context that is exactly what it is saying. If not, what do you assert the article is proposing? If your answer is, “I don’t know, but since it didn’t explicitly say how I’m going to treat is as inscrutable”, then you’re just caping for the article’s misogynistic and paternalistic insinuations.
I am very aware of how insincere, petty and close minded the right can be, but your words have taught me that the left can be just as bad. Thank you for the lesson. If you didn’t understand what I said about a Rush-y take, I can’t help and you won’t hear. I remain angry that FAIR has misled y’all into misquoting data, and continue to maintain that we should expect better of them.
?? You are making stuff up and expect us to just go along with your misinterpretation??
You say, “it’s not Republican men who are refusing to date liberal women.”
The WaPo piece says, “A 2021 survey of college students found that 71 percent of Democrats would not date someone with opposing views.”
Notice it does NOT say men or women. It says “Democrats”.
MY complaint is that FAIR misleads the reader into thinking WaPo said what you are saying. Honest reporting would explain how culture and language may lead the WaPo reader to infer women must change if they seek to marry while also explaining that it is never so stated. Dishonest reporting would argue that the WaPo piece absolutely says conservative men should become Democrats or that women should accept misogyny – but WaPo never said either of those things. Instead it called out for people to open their minds and try to consider how another PoV might see things:
Unfortunately, Americans have not equipped themselves to discuss, debate and reason across these divides. Americans have increasingly sorted themselves according to ideological orientation. They are working, living and socializing with people who think the same things they do. Particularly on college campuses, a culture of seeking sameness has set up young Americans for disappointment. They expect people to share their own convictions and commitments. But people’s insight and understanding about the world often come from considering alternative perspectives that may at first seem odd or offensive.
And what do I see in this thread? People who refuse to consider alternate perspectives.
You say, “it’s not Republican men who are refusing to date liberal women.”
The WaPo piece says, “A 2021 survey of college students found that 71 percent of Democrats would not date someone with opposing views.”
Notice it does NOT say men or women. It says “Democrats”.
If you look just above that, you’ll see that the article is specifically pointing out the imbalance between women and men being along political lines:
46 percent of White Gen Z women are liberal, compared to only 28 percent of White Gen Z men, more of whom (36 percent) now identify as conservative. Norms around sexuality and gender are diverging, too. Whereas 61 percent of Gen Z women see themselves as feminist, only 43 percent of Gen Z men do.
Followed by
This mismatch means that someone will need to compromise. As the researchers Lyman Stone and Brad Wilcox have noted, about 1 in 5 young singles will have little choice but to marry someone outside their ideological tribe.
Combined with their observation that it is Democrats who will not date non-Democrats, it is they who would have to compromise by the article’s logic.
Dishonest reporting would argue that the WaPo piece absolutely says conservative men should become Democrats
Except the article explicitly says the opposite of that:
about 1 in 5 young singles will have little choice but to marry someone outside their ideological tribe. The other option is that they decline to get married at all
They explicitly spell out only 2 options: either not marry, or marry across political lines (which the marriages would not BE if the men stopped being conservative, since they’d then both be liberal). It literally does not leave open the possibility of either side changing their political stances.
Instead it called out for people to open their minds and try to consider how another PoV might see things
And what do I see in this thread? People who refuse to consider alternate perspectives.
This is just infantilization of GenZers. What are they (or you) basing the assumption on that GenZers (and I) have not considered the other sides? Just because we don’t reach the same conclusions?
Sorry friend, but just like you I also have conservative family members (some for religious reasons, some for political ones), and I think that aspect of them makes them pieces of shit (even if I still love them as family) precisely because I know their motivations and their reasons, and those reasons aren’t good enough to excuse their beliefs.
I have considered alternate perspectives, long and hard. I just don’t agree with your conclusions.
I’m going to copy part of a comment of mine from up the thread: We keep hearing “People are so polarized these days! Why can’t they put politics aside and get along?” when the “politics” in question are where one group thinks entire swathes of people shouldn’t be allowed to exist and are working diligently to strip us of our civil and human rights. That’s not a difference of opinion, it’s a difference of morality, and there’s not two sides here to compromise. I’m not going to “consider” that “perspective”
I see what you’re saying. It’s definitely bullshit to accept compromise at the moment. Like I said in another reply I don’t see anything about them saying a particular gender should make a particular compromise but the idea of compromising with fascists is not okay. I see how they’re trying to nudge the reader rightwards.
Also from the article:
Their suggestion to enact a cultural shift that deprioritizes politics does not actually address the problems with being a chud (the misogyny being one component of that), thus having to compromise/make peace with it is the logical conclusion of their suggestion. Compromise in general suggests that both sides of a dispute are making concessions towards each other, when in reality it’s the chuds who need to stop being ghouls. This would also fall in line with the larger media trend of telling liberals to move to the right. The WaPo article itself is more subtle about this than explicit, but I do not think the headline of the FAIR article is inaccurate.
Yeah media is still acting like we’re in an era where political disagreements are still a matter of differing politics instead of the modern issue of completely divergent moralities.
Yeah, compromise requires a degree of shared reality, goals, and ethics, which has declined super hard over the past few decades.
Whether one believes that the lives of women are morally considerable, for example! (or best case scenario - worth as much as whatever tax savings one thinks they’ll reap 😒)
Oh yeah totally. It’s just ~*politics*~ and not at all a reliable determinant of whether your potential partner will treat you as an equal🙄
Exactly. It’s the same shit of “People are so polarized these days! Why can’t they put politics aside and get along?” when the “politics” in question are where one group thinks entire swathes of people shouldn’t be allowed to exist and are working diligently to strip up of our civil and human rights. That’s not a difference of opinion, and there’s not two sides here to compromise.
And wrt marriage, if a large group of men are going down alt-right/MRA/etc. rabbit holes, then it’s not the fault of potential partners to be completely put off by that. It’s not a difference of opinion, its a difference of morality.
Bullshit. At no point does the article tell women to compromise with misogyny. That is what the (un)fair title says and that is a lie.
That said, I do agree that there are subtle messages throughout society that women ought to do the compromising, ‘boys will be boys’ and all kinds of other BS. It is wrong, it ought to change, it is there. Still, it isn’t fair to make all those implications and accusations the fault and sole responsibility of the Washington Post. Regarding political ‘sides’, the WaPo piece pointed out:
Can we agree that sensationalistic media coverage is generally a bad thing? I remember a time before FOX – a time when journalism was supposed to be unbiased – and the headline here is just as bad as some of mis-spun crap I’ve seen there (like referring to undocumented as ‘criminals’ to promote the idea that cities are not safe).
They do though (subtly), as it’s the logical conclusion of their stupid suggestion. Just because they didn’t smack you in the face with it doesn’t mean they’re not doing it.
I’m glad you agree, as this WaPo article is one such example. Gonna reiterate though that compromise involves both parties making concessions.
No one is doing that? The WaPo article in question is just one particular example of many of this phenomenon.
I mean, sure, but it’s not really relevant to the conversation here. Also, I hate to break it to you, but:
Manufacturing Consent was first published in 1988 and used examples from the 1960s to make their case, which predates the existence of Fox News by several decades. “Unbiased journalism” has not been a thing for at least 60 years, if it ever existed at all. Shit’s worse now, don’t get me wrong, but it was never actually good during most of our lifetimes and looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses is not going to produce an accurate picture.
This is just ridiculous hyperbole. Following a suggestion to its logical conclusion is nowhere near as bad as intentionally smearing marginalized groups in order to incite state violence (and maybe some stochastic terrorism) against them.
Look, we should be on the same side. The most obvious thing missing from the piece was that some people might choose a same sex marriage. I think there might also be something about happiness and longevity differences between the sexes such that marriage is a great deal for men, but not so much for women – but I don’t remember enough details to back that up with anything, I simply noted the absence of statistics on if men or women had any difference in their level of happiness in a not-so-great marriage versus being single (because I think I remember something like that, but I’m not sure).
Anyway, I’m aware that journalism has never uniformly reached its own ideal of unbiased factual reporting, and because of that, I try to keep track of who is spinning things in which direction. Heck, Yellow Journalism became a phrase more than 100 years ago. Today’s drive for clicks and eyeballs means “spin” becomes a frequent, nigh on incessant issue. If no one calls it out, people might think their trusted source is spouting a ‘truth’ that the mainstream media refuses to publish for fear of their stockholders. Fox viewers and their ilk would certainly tell you the WaPo piece is attempting to take away their guns and turn ‘Mr. Burly Man’ into ‘Mr. Yes Ma’am’. When you tell them they’re delusional, they pull a what-about-ism on sites like FAIR for doing the same thing in reverse. As you rightly point out, the conservative side is typically more outrageous than the liberal side, but I don’t want to give them ANY ammunition! These people think commies and fascists are the same thing and that their glorious orange leader is neither.
So, perhaps it is unfair of me to hold Democracy Now and FAIR and a bunch of other sources to a higher standard than, say, FOX and NEWSMAX but those latter two fail to reach the lowest of bars. They lie and spin and rarely offer opinions that acknowledge any validity to another point of view. We know how conservative sites manipulate the narrative. Is it asking too much that more liberal sites refrain from stooping to their level? All they had to do was make a title like, “Veiled WaPo Nudge to Women: If You Want Marriage, Compromise With Misogyny.” Too wordy? How about, “WaPo Hints: Ladies, If You Want to Marry, Try Misogynists.” Better? It is the same sentiment without the lie that “WaPo tells Women,” which is too gross an overstatement for me to let slide.
It strains my credulity a bit that the only single thing you’re actually taking issue with is their use of “tells” rather than “hints/insinuates/nudges”. That single word is not making any difference to the impact of the original OR critique articles, as it is, in all colloquial use, a synonym.
That user you’re replying to really seems to struggle with thinking through ideas. They’re probably the type that would have fallen for Southern Strategy.
I don’t see what this has to do with anything I said.
It really doesn’t matter if you do or not, as they’re liars and morons who will use their media apparatus to manufacture outrage if they can’t find something organically.
I would say that the unfair part is the bullshit false equivalence you’re drawing here, because again, pointing out the logical conclusion of their suggestion is neither lying nor producing spin. It is the practical result of taking their suggestion. Women will end up compromising with misogyny if they do what WaPo told them to do, so they are effectively telling them to do that. You’re trying to nitpick over something dumb. The headline is fine as is.
Republicans are misogynists (by policy, if nothing else) ->
Article tells women to compromise with Republicans ->
Ergo article is telling them to compromise with misogyny.
Pretty straightforward.
But, no, it does not. Verbatim, it says, “This mismatch means that someone will need to compromise.”
If you were someone like Rush Limbaugh, you would tell the right that this is another example of Bezos using his media spin machine to disenfranchise conservative men, calling them stupid, unsuitable and telling them they have to compromise. Rush would never tell them the piece said no such thing and they’d never read the source to see for themselves.
FAIR could have written an article that explained that POV as well and described included details left out, but instead chose to rile up the left with half statements the same way the right would do.
I apologize for being so bothered by this, but I have to deal with relatives who are conservatives as a matter of Faith. Their church friends won’t hear reason so they won’t either UNLESS it is broached in an extremely fair and unbiased manner. Sometimes I can give them a nudge in such a situation, but not the way FAIR is doing here.
Except that, as this article pointed out, it’s not Republican men who are refusing to date liberal women, so there is only one group whose “compromise” would affect this situation, and it’s the women’s.
You are trying to make something of the original op-ed not explicitly stating that it’s women who must compromise, and ignoring that in context that is exactly what it is saying. If not, what do you assert the article is proposing? If your answer is, “I don’t know, but since it didn’t explicitly say how I’m going to treat is as inscrutable”, then you’re just caping for the article’s misogynistic and paternalistic insinuations.
I am very aware of how insincere, petty and close minded the right can be, but your words have taught me that the left can be just as bad. Thank you for the lesson. If you didn’t understand what I said about a Rush-y take, I can’t help and you won’t hear. I remain angry that FAIR has misled y’all into misquoting data, and continue to maintain that we should expect better of them.
You’re the one in here misrepresenting the very clear position being advocated by WaPo, so kindly ride your high horse on out.
Being open minded to harmful ideologies is not a positive thing.
But I’m sure the other “enlightened centrists” will love to hear all about how you held the line against the totally dishonest Leftist headlines.
?? You are making stuff up and expect us to just go along with your misinterpretation??
You say, “it’s not Republican men who are refusing to date liberal women.”
The WaPo piece says, “A 2021 survey of college students found that 71 percent of Democrats would not date someone with opposing views.”
Notice it does NOT say men or women. It says “Democrats”.
MY complaint is that FAIR misleads the reader into thinking WaPo said what you are saying. Honest reporting would explain how culture and language may lead the WaPo reader to infer women must change if they seek to marry while also explaining that it is never so stated. Dishonest reporting would argue that the WaPo piece absolutely says conservative men should become Democrats or that women should accept misogyny – but WaPo never said either of those things. Instead it called out for people to open their minds and try to consider how another PoV might see things:
And what do I see in this thread? People who refuse to consider alternate perspectives.
If you look just above that, you’ll see that the article is specifically pointing out the imbalance between women and men being along political lines:
Followed by
Combined with their observation that it is Democrats who will not date non-Democrats, it is they who would have to compromise by the article’s logic.
Except the article explicitly says the opposite of that:
They explicitly spell out only 2 options: either not marry, or marry across political lines (which the marriages would not BE if the men stopped being conservative, since they’d then both be liberal). It literally does not leave open the possibility of either side changing their political stances.
This is just infantilization of GenZers. What are they (or you) basing the assumption on that GenZers (and I) have not considered the other sides? Just because we don’t reach the same conclusions?
Sorry friend, but just like you I also have conservative family members (some for religious reasons, some for political ones), and I think that aspect of them makes them pieces of shit (even if I still love them as family) precisely because I know their motivations and their reasons, and those reasons aren’t good enough to excuse their beliefs.
I have considered alternate perspectives, long and hard. I just don’t agree with your conclusions.
I’m going to copy part of a comment of mine from up the thread: We keep hearing “People are so polarized these days! Why can’t they put politics aside and get along?” when the “politics” in question are where one group thinks entire swathes of people shouldn’t be allowed to exist and are working diligently to strip us of our civil and human rights. That’s not a difference of opinion, it’s a difference of morality, and there’s not two sides here to compromise. I’m not going to “consider” that “perspective”
I see what you’re saying. It’s definitely bullshit to accept compromise at the moment. Like I said in another reply I don’t see anything about them saying a particular gender should make a particular compromise but the idea of compromising with fascists is not okay. I see how they’re trying to nudge the reader rightwards.
Thanks.