In what sense is the title inflammatory or inaccurate? It provides an explanation:
Fossil fuels provide petrol and plastic. But for some people — particularly white, conservative, North American men — they underpin culture, she explained. Measures to phase them out in the face of climate catastrophe can easily be perceived as a threat to these people’s sense of culture and self-worth, imposed by a vague group of elites. These perceptions serve to make climate action a political hot potato.
And a source: “Cara Daggett, a Virginia Tech professor and climate sociologist.”
I don’t see how the intersection of whiteness and masculinity isn’t the very issue at stake here.
I think it’s inaccurate because the essence of what makes someone spread climate denial is not gender or skin color. Why target white men at large and not petro-masculinity or the manosphere? The solution is not getting rid of white men, it’s a culture shift, something this community is trying to explore. Fortunately the article is more nuanced than the the title.
Uh, no one – in the article or in this thread – is advocating getting rid of white men. But acknowledging that white men particularly have issues – and those issues are related to climate change and masculinity, particularly petro-masculinity – seems … fine actually? White men are not above criticism.
I never said anyone was suggesting to get rid of white men. It would be absurd to suggest so. That’s my point. This means that white men aren’t the actual essence of the problem.
I’m a white man and I do my best to fight climate change. I’m not right wing and I don’t even know how to drive. I hate cars. There’s way too many of them. I go about with my kid in the bus and the subway. It’s cool. Why is the title stating I’m a climate denial super spreader? These blanket generalizations are bad no matter the group targeted because they have a “us versus them” dynamic.
Again, my gripe is precisely with the title, not the article itself. It starts off bad and turns off the ones that actually need to read this.
There’s quite a gap between “we need to get rid of white men” and “white men have problems that need to be fixed!” Can’t we say the latter without saying the former?
Why is the title stating I’m a climate denial super spreader?
The funny thing when talking about any problem with white people, is that then you have two problems: the original problem, and also white fragility.
We can talk about problems with whiteness and white people without indicting individuals, just as we can talk about problems with masculinity and men without indicting individuals. No one is coming to take your whiteness away or telling you you’re a bad person.
Now, can we talk about the problems with white masculinity?
Oh lay off the fragile masculinity/snowflake shit. We have feelings too. I’d like to see your take on an article called “Gay men are STI super spreaders” or “Blacks men end up in prison”. These two titles could both accompany thoughtful articles too, because underneath these vulgar headlines are genuine societal issues. I’m disappointed that a mod of this community of all people is telling me to just man up and suck up on the generalized man shaming.
The question is why do you feel targeted. I’m as white as it gets - and I don’t feel targeted by the headline, generalised or shamed in any way or form. I get that headlines have to be edgy - that is the game of klick based 24h news circle.
I feel targeted because I’m lumped into the title’s generalization. I’ve read a bit about informal generalizations afterwards and I get now that I don’t have to interpret it as such. Such generalizations are not as universally shunned upon as I thought as long as they don’t devolve into stereotypes.
As for clickbaity titles, of course it’s a thing but they’re counter productive so I’d rather call them out.
But the gay community was the primary community impacted by monkeypox, and I can say that without anger or judgment, for the purpose of fixing that problem in our community and targeting the people most affected by it. And for stopping it in the proper place.
…just like the problems with white masculinity.
I’m suggesting you dismiss your fragility and focus on the problems and improving them.
In what sense is the title inflammatory or inaccurate? It provides an explanation:
And a source: “Cara Daggett, a Virginia Tech professor and climate sociologist.”
I don’t see how the intersection of whiteness and masculinity isn’t the very issue at stake here.
I think it’s inaccurate because the essence of what makes someone spread climate denial is not gender or skin color. Why target white men at large and not petro-masculinity or the manosphere? The solution is not getting rid of white men, it’s a culture shift, something this community is trying to explore. Fortunately the article is more nuanced than the the title.
Uh, no one – in the article or in this thread – is advocating getting rid of white men. But acknowledging that white men particularly have issues – and those issues are related to climate change and masculinity, particularly petro-masculinity – seems … fine actually? White men are not above criticism.
I never said anyone was suggesting to get rid of white men. It would be absurd to suggest so. That’s my point. This means that white men aren’t the actual essence of the problem.
I’m a white man and I do my best to fight climate change. I’m not right wing and I don’t even know how to drive. I hate cars. There’s way too many of them. I go about with my kid in the bus and the subway. It’s cool. Why is the title stating I’m a climate denial super spreader? These blanket generalizations are bad no matter the group targeted because they have a “us versus them” dynamic.
Again, my gripe is precisely with the title, not the article itself. It starts off bad and turns off the ones that actually need to read this.
There’s quite a gap between “we need to get rid of white men” and “white men have problems that need to be fixed!” Can’t we say the latter without saying the former?
The funny thing when talking about any problem with white people, is that then you have two problems: the original problem, and also white fragility.
We can talk about problems with whiteness and white people without indicting individuals, just as we can talk about problems with masculinity and men without indicting individuals. No one is coming to take your whiteness away or telling you you’re a bad person.
Now, can we talk about the problems with white masculinity?
Oh lay off the fragile masculinity/snowflake shit. We have feelings too. I’d like to see your take on an article called “Gay men are STI super spreaders” or “Blacks men end up in prison”. These two titles could both accompany thoughtful articles too, because underneath these vulgar headlines are genuine societal issues. I’m disappointed that a mod of this community of all people is telling me to just man up and suck up on the generalized man shaming.
The question is why do you feel targeted. I’m as white as it gets - and I don’t feel targeted by the headline, generalised or shamed in any way or form. I get that headlines have to be edgy - that is the game of klick based 24h news circle.
I feel targeted because I’m lumped into the title’s generalization. I’ve read a bit about informal generalizations afterwards and I get now that I don’t have to interpret it as such. Such generalizations are not as universally shunned upon as I thought as long as they don’t devolve into stereotypes.
As for clickbaity titles, of course it’s a thing but they’re counter productive so I’d rather call them out.
(I really should let this thread be already.)
But the gay community was the primary community impacted by monkeypox, and I can say that without anger or judgment, for the purpose of fixing that problem in our community and targeting the people most affected by it. And for stopping it in the proper place.
…just like the problems with white masculinity.
I’m suggesting you dismiss your fragility and focus on the problems and improving them.
Removed by mod