- cross-posted to:
- environment
- breadtube@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- environment
- breadtube@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3840271
Check out c/breadtube for more left video content and discussion.
You must log in or register to comment.
Blaming men or women is beyond dumb. It’s greedy corporations and corrupt politicians. Videos like this only distract people
I think the important thing is that we are divided along arbitrary lines, pitted needlessly against each other and thereby paralysed and unable to push for the necessary policy changes.
The video spends a long time on the phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications. It cites one experiment wherein 16 women and 9 men had an introductory conversation on the issue. During this conversation there were 6 active speakers. 4 men speaking for a total of 9 minutes and 2 women who spoke for a total of 1 minute. These tendencies are mostly due to individuals desires to claim leadership of a group but absolutely leave us “paralysed and unable to push for the necessary policy changes”. If you are interested in watching any portion of the video, you can skip to the part that I mentioned by going here.
The paper that the video cites: https://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2017/4/article/taking-space-men-masculinity-and-student-climate-movement
EDIT: Hopefully this wasn’t double posted. My primary instance was having some outage issues.
Exactly. My dad is more worried about ‘woke’ crap and how the ‘lgbtq’ is messing with children’s brains. Like dad, our gov’t is literally stealing billions, letting corruption run rampant, passing laws to tax us more, and slowly killing our planet.
I really think we have more important issues to worry about.
The video spends a long time on the phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications. It cites one experiment wherein 16 women and 9 men had an introductory conversation on the issue. During this conversation there were 6 active speakers. 4 men speaking for a total of 9 minutes and 2 women who spoke for a total of 1 minute. These tendencies are mostly due to individuals desires to claim leadership of a group but absolutely leave us “paralysed and unable to push for the necessary policy changes”. If you are interested in watching any portion of the video, you can skip to the part that I mentioned by going here.
The paper that the video cites: https://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2017/4/article/taking-space-men-masculinity-and-student-climate-movement
It cites one study wherein 16 women and 9 men had an introductory conversation on the issue.
Which leads you to feel comfortable making the widely generalised conclusion of:
The video spends a long time on the phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications.
One paper, with a sample size of 25. With no rigorous data beyond “we observed an academic meeting and the men spoke more times, for longer”. That paper also attributes a lot of reasons for why the men did this and nearly all of it based in speculation beyond the two quotes. The paper bases an astounding amount of assertions based off this incredible weak data.
The implication that the experiment cited was at all meant to backup the assertion that there exists a
phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications
is very clearly a mischaracterization. What I did was describe the content of the video in a comments section otherwise devoid of any evidence that anybody had watched the video. If you are interested in looking into the body of work that establishes the tendency of men to talk over others, I have found the full-text of the fairly foundational metastudy “Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research”. It’s notable that most of the research on this topic leading up to the present day has been framed as answering the age-old question “Do women talk more?”.
attributes a lot of reasons for why the men did this
Those are not reasons in so far as they are meant to explain the men’s motivations but rather the methods by which they wrestle and maintain control of the discourse. It’s important to understand that this is written largely to bring them to the attention of the folks that are actively marginalized by these activities, so that they may counter and dismantle these systems.
Blaming men or women is beyond dumb. It’s greedy corporations and corrupt politicians. Videos like this only distract people
The video doesn’t blame men or women. It analyzes and criticizes the power structure that excacerbates serious issues and hinders us from making positive change happen.
(I use this reply format to prevent my replies from being removed if/when the comment that I’m replying to is deleted by the creator.)
I think the important thing is that we are divided along arbitrary lines, pitted needlessly against each other and thereby paralysed and unable to push for the necessary policy changes.
The video title is meant to be inflammatory to get people to watch it. Criticizing patriarchy is not attacking men or dividing groups. In fact, it does the exact opposite, resisting the power dynamics that stratify and divide groups and prevent us from working together to achieve change.
(I use this reply format to prevent my replies from being removed if/when the comment that I’m replying to is deleted by the creator.) Edit: typos
Criticizing patriarchy is not attacking men or dividing groups.
What an interesting thought given the title of the video is literally “are men killing the planet?”. People insist that blaming the patriarchy == blaming men yet in actuality this rarely seems to a distinction drawn by the same people who espouse the patriarchy rhetoric.
Criticizing patriarchy is not attacking men or dividing groups.
What an interesting thought given the title of the video is literally “are men killing the planet?”. People insist that blaming the patriarchy == blaming men yet in actuality this rarely seems to a distinction drawn by the same people who espouse the patriarchy rhetoric.
Criticizing patriarchy as a harmful social system isn’t the same as blaming men for its existence. These concepts address different aspects of the issue. When we critique patriarchy, we’re examining how societal norms, institutions, and power dynamics contribute to inequalities and cause harm in different arenas, in this particuar instance, anthropogenic climate change. This critique focuses on the overall structure, recognizing that while men might benefit more, they aren’t individually responsible for creating or maintaining the system.
Blaming men assigns collective responsibility to individual men for patriarchy’s existence. This overlooks the fact that many men also suffer from its constraints and norms. It’s not fair to hold all men accountable for a system they didn’t design or choose. Recognizing it and pointing it out, as this video does, can allow men, and anyone else, to potentially do something to address or change it in their own lives.
Critiquing patriarchy acknowledges its impact beyond individual intentions. It’s about recognizing how certain norms and power structures disadvantage people of all genders. This critique seeks to promote change and equality by challenging harmful norms and dismantling systemic barriers. This benefits not only women but also men who want to live without rigid gender expectations.
In essence, critiquing patriarchy aims to raise awareness for change without unfairly blaming men for the entire system. By understanding this distinction, we can collectively work towards a more just and inclusive society for everyone, while at the same time making progress on addressing the climate emergency.
I understand the foundational concepts to the patriarchy idea and accept that some people who believe it can draw the distinction. My point remains that most do not. Including this video author who felt comfortable titling the video as they did. Even in the paper this video apparently references the paper starts with addressing the patriarchy and rapidly goes from that to pointing solely to “white men” as being the focal point of the issue/paper.
I think that claiming there is absolutely no patriarchy or patriarchal element to society is disingenuous at best. That aside I think it is looked to as the sole reason or even the main reason for a lot of issues without cause and little to no scientific reasoning. If the world switch to being a matriarchy tomorrow it’d still be business as usual because it’d be women CEOs/interest group/corporate entities making billions in blood money instead. Trying to pin all of societies woes on the patriarchy just does not seem in anyway conductive to the larger issue in this context, which is climate change. Especially when it does so on shoddy papers like the one referenced in the video.
Lmfao
That aside I think it is looked to as the sole reason or even the main reason for a lot of issues without cause and little to no scientific reasoning.
you being to scared to challenge your bias by actually looking up and finding said research doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
If the world switch to being a matriarchy tomorrow it’d still be business as usual because it’d be women CEOs/interest group/corporate entities making billions in blood money instead
[citation needed]
But not really, this is a typical display of projection where a member of an oppressive group projects their way of thinking (there must be oppressors and oppressed) on to those seeking equality (hint: no one oppresses no one).Trying to pin all of societies woes on the patriarchy just does not seem in anyway conductive to the larger issue in this context
only because it make you sooooo damn uncomfortable you can’t even seem to hear anything past the word “patriarchy” to take in the points it’s making, without cantering your own hurt feelings at being generalised “against” (boo fucking hoo) and getting ^^^this self defensive. If hearing bad things about the patriarchy hit such a massive nerve for you, have you ever considered fighting it, instead of those trying to abolish it?
You are literally the child with their fingers in their ears and eyes shut yelling LALALALALALALLALA at the top of their lungs to avid hearing that broccoli is good for them 🤣🤣
You’re literally demonstrating the problem, but you so adamantly refuse to even acknowledge said problem, you’ll never be able to even comprehend how.
If Israel is any indication, oppressed groups are just as likely to oppress when power is acquired. Your belief otherwise is evidence to f your own bigotry. Humans are humans. Changing the gender doesn’t change geopolitics and thinking otherwise is painfully naïve.
Petromasculinity is a well documented phenomena and when paired with the male tendency to dominate discussions and consolidate power in hierarchies (both are covered in the video in the form of studies wherein climate oriented groups are completely derailed by their male participants apparent need to talk the most and shut down group based discussion) we see a problem that is salient and familiar but applied to a crisis where the stakes could not be higher. For the men in this thread who are unwilling to even WATCH the video let alone consider the merits of its arguments, it is very likely that you are actively the problem, because the same tendencies that inspire that action are also used to silence voices that can be instrumental in actual change.
It’s ironic. I expected the post of the video was going to be downvoted to hell for this very reason. If people would at least listen and consider the idea, they might be able to start making change happen in an ideological cultural underpinning that runs so deep.
As Lewis’s Law dictates - the comments on any article about feminism justify the existence of feminism.
As Lewis’s Law dictates - the comments on any article about feminism justify the existence of feminism.
Haha I enjoy this one! :)
/u/redpen@lemmy.world /u/spaduf@slrpnk.net thanks for the discussion and for the link to the article. I actually found both the video and article really interesting and informative and can see how my original off the cuff comment totally missed the point. These are things I’ve absolutely seen in my everyday life and really frustrate me. This kind of toxic masculinity bs and shitty behavior hurts everyone in so many ways, it’s pervasive everywhere not just in climate forums and I agree we should be talking about the issues, raising awareness and trying to fix them.
Unfortunately, 98% of people are only ever going to see the title of the video (based on a quick search of youtube conversion rates), which in my view does an awful job of representing the content. It is inflammatory and harms the discussion. How do you think someone on the fence about these issues would be impacted by the title? Just look at the discussion in this comment section, including my own comment, missing the point and the reception this post has been met with will cause it to get buried pretty quickly here. Communication is tough, I don’t have an answer and often get it wrong myself, I’m not a content creator or communicator. It’s just a shame that the article and video are going to go unseen by many or potentially even make people feel attacked and divide folks further when the intention is actually the opposite as you mentioned.
I agree that the creator may have chosen a title that could potentially be counterproductive, but it was certainly an intentional move. At least it led to some discussion on an issue that frankly doesn’t have much awareness is the generl public. “Shock value” is a strategy where creators intentionally use provocative or controversial imagery, titles, or content to elicit strong emotional reactions from their audience. This can be done to grab attention, spark discussions, and raise awareness about a particular issue, idea, or message. The goal is to make the audience think and engage with the content more deeply due to the intense emotional response it evokes. In this case, it worked pretty well, considering many videos posted have almost no discussion at all in the comments.
Edit: spelling
I think most people know why it’s done, it’s pretty transparent and common especially for a YouTube video where you are incentivised to get clicks, watch time and comments. I just think in many cases including this one it is a perverse incentive that runs counter to the actual goal of raising awareness and generating quality discussions. Human brains are great at coming to quick judgements based off their biases, especially if it confirms pre conceived notions, no need to make it easier. This is how we get echo chambers where everyone who already agrees with each other congregates around certain communities and creators, not how we raise awareness and promote discussion.
Anyway, it’s pretty pervasive everywhere unfortunately, this video is far from the only one so I know I’m just talking into the wind here. The general problem is a tough one like I said and I don’t know what the solution is or if there even is one because it’s tied to the whole business model of all these platforms.
Well, I hear the wind talk and appreciate the discussion. I think in broaching a topic like climate change and especially how it relates to established social systems and norms, it takes all kinds. There is definitely an incentive you describe that is perverse when it’s just for money, but when it comes to getting a message out there, I think most well-meaning people just realize they have to play the game. Everything in in the digital age is always is jockying for leverage in the attention economy, and if what your putting out is something you really care about, you want it to have an impact. I definitely agree the approach can be counterproductive, but it’s up the creator in the end. And, other less genuine, reactionary, and shallow exchanges in this post’s comment section aside, at least in this particular case it led to something good.
Hop on over to c/breadtube and contribute more if you find these kinds of topics interesting. I’m hoping that while Lemmy is small, we can get something decent cultivated. Much appreciated :)
Removed by mod
If just a few people who have never come to terms or heard the ideas before have engaged with it where they otherwise wouldn’t have, especially if they come to the comments ready to give a reactionary piece of their mind and see the discssion, then I think the shock value strategy worked. It’s ultimately the creator’s choice how they present it, and I see the value in being evocative. If the title were “How Heirarchical Social Systems Contribute to Anthropogenic Climate Change,” frankly it just wouldn’t get the exposure. As marketing, politcal discourse, and everyday experience will attest to, appeal to emotion works.
Petromasculinity is a well documented phenomena and when paired with the male tendency to dominate discussions and consolidate power in hierarchies (both are covered in the video in the form of studies wherein climate oriented groups are completely derailed by their male participants apparent need to talk the most and shut down group based discussion) we see a problem that is salient and familiar but applied to a crisis where the stakes could not be higher. For the men in this thread who are unwilling to even WATCH the video let alone consider the merits of its arguments, it is very likely that you are actively the problem, because the same tendencies that inspire that action are also used to silence voices that can be instrumental in actual change.
