Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Doge of NM's avatar

Great article, love the spirit of it. I would agree with a lot of this piece, but now it is time to put on my grumpy Millennial Male Hat and harp on a few points.

"According to Evans, young women in mixed gendered spaces educate their male friends about the assumptions and entitlement they have about women."

I find this a perverse way of thinking of friendship, that you will 'educate' your friends. And it is precisely this sort of cultural attitude that polarizes people. I grew up overseas with many people with a lot of different backgrounds, and many beliefs I find to be plainly untrue. I had the pleasure to befriend many people precisely because we didn't try to 'educate' each other, we simply were friends and recognized each other as people we valued. Rather it has been this recent trend of 'educating' that I have found destructive.

In recent years having friendships with female friends have gotten harder, because I would prefer a more nuanced vision of how men and women should engage. A years long relationship ended a few years back because my female friend couldn't 'believe' that I didn't have completely agreement with her. Every time we hung out it would devolve into the same argument. And I would argue this need to 'educate' has tainted not only the discourse between men and women but in seemingly everything.

I am in the (un)fortunate position that I have a diverse friend group where I have people on both sides of the political aisle while I sit somewhere in the middle. The same people who I have known for years can no longer contain their political views, now having to volunteer a 'fact' about Trump or Biden, and how if you don't know this fact you are dumb and unaware. We need to stop educating each other and get away from every meal turning into an opportunity to proselytize.

This all feels a lot like the last post on Persuasion (https://www.persuasion.community/p/journalism-needs-cultural-adjacency). Particularly the line:

"If you’re hanging out with an unsavory character, for instance, and you don’t want to get your ass kicked, you go with the flow. You might disagree with this person, but opposing theories don’t register with this kind of guy."

We all need to get more comfortable with other people thinking differently than we do. We should instead focus on spending time together where nothing is at stake.

I would also avoid this well-worn rhetoric:

"And if we are successful in our efforts to decrease gender polarization, we can start alleviating many other social problems: the loneliness epidemic, mutual hostility between political tribes, and the number of men and boys drifting towards the reactionary right and the flagrantly anti-democratic instincts it is associated with."

Firstly you are citing Charles Blow who I find to be one of the most predictable ideologues. More importantly the 'flagrantly anti-democratic instincts' is not going to win you any friends. First off I engage with some of these men and they do not appreciate being told they are anti-democratic and otherwise 'bad', thats precisely the type of attitude that they are responding to when turning to the online-right. I would also very much argue that the democrats have no love for democracy, again the previous article mentions ' “voting against their interests” or why Hispanics are suffering from such mysterious ailments such as “multiracial whiteness.”'. See the wonderful collection of clips from Matt Orfalea documenting a similar 'the election was rigged' rhetoric post-2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOYQeIrVdYo). Now I would argue that there is a notable difference in the presentation of these views, with the democrats adopting an intellectual sort of air about their views while the republicans appear to be represented by some high school drop out screaming on the corner. But just because you are more intelligent/polite about it doesn't mean we should get dewy eyed about the democrats, both sides simply wishes to win and cares little for 'democracy' besides as a claim to legitimacy.

Just last weekend I was trying to talk a friend out of voting for Trump, and the only way I can do that is to treat him as a thinking individual who wants best for his family. He has a lot of anger that born of being told that because he is conservative (socially and economically) that he is bad, anti-democratic, etc. If I simply reiterated the trite statement that "Trump is bad, doesn't like democracy" I will be no different than the others in his life. But by approaching it as a question of policies and what he wants for himself and his family there is possible dialogue. Doubtful that I succeeded, but at least he listens to my arguments and I hear his.

Expand full comment
Andrew Wurzer's avatar

This was a frustrating read. I agree with Mr. Xu's prescriptions, but many of the facts he deploys read like the poor assumptions typical liberals make about things like the "gap" between men and women in STEM. Is it possible women and men, on average bases, are interested in different things? That the difference between men and women in STEM is like the difference between men and women in garbage collection? In nursing? In construction?

The core of this argument is that society is in some sense "holding women back" from entering those fields. I challenge that notion. I'm not going to argue men and women have it equally hard or easy; but I am going to argue that any women with the intellect and interest to be in STEM can be in STEM. It's a choice.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts