Liz Plank & Richard Reeves Debate Gender Inequality | The Man Enough Podcast
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2023
- Full Episode: • Empowering Young Men &...
Brookings Institution scholar and acclaimed author Richard Reeves tackles the pressing issue of young men falling behind, on a mission to uplift them without jeopardizing women's rights. In this compelling and personal conversation, Richard delves into his book, "Of Boys and Men," revealing insights on the growing education gap, the push for men in care professions, and the quest for diverse examples of "non-toxic" masculinity that differ from traditional femininity. Join us as we discuss redefining gender roles, fostering equality, and reevaluating the term "toxic masculinity" for a more inclusive future.
About Richard Reeves:
Richard Reeves is a Brookings Institution scholar and renowned author and social commentator, known for his insightful analysis of contemporary social issues, particularly those affecting boys and men in today's rapidly changing world.
Read Of Boys And Men
In Of Boys and Men Richard Reeves explores the changing dynamics between men and boys in contemporary society. The book delves into the various social, economic, and educational factors that contribute to these changes. The book is a thought-provoking examination of the challenges facing boys and men as it calls for greater understanding, support, and intervention to help them overcome these obstacles and build a more equitable and successful future.
Quotes:
“I had thought that in order to be a good feminist I needed to become less…I think that’s a part of a larger societal challenge that we need to rise together, we don’t need one sex to become less for the other to become more.”
“How do we make equality erotic?”
“I have yet to find anybody that can define non-toxic masculinity in a way that is distinct from femininity.”
“It’s incredibly early in a revolution. We’ve had half a revolution if that, in terms of gender.”
Guest Social Links:
Twitter: :@RichardvReeves
The Man Enough Podcast is produced by Wayfarer Studios and presented by Procter and Gamble, in partnership with Cadence13, an Audacy company.
HOSTS: Justin Baldoni, Liz Plank, and Jamey Heath
JOIN THE MAN ENOUGH COMMUNITY:
Follow: manenough.com/podcast
Instagram: / wearemanenough
TikTok: tiktok.com/wearemanenough
Twitter: / wearemanenough
Facebook: / wearemanenough
Subscribe to the Man Enough newsletter for behind the scenes, updates, and sneak peeks of new episodes, as well as positive masculinity content: manenough.com/newsletter
Read the book: manenough.com/books
FOLLOW THE HOSTS:
Justin Baldoni Instagram: / justinbaldoni
Justin Baldoni TikTok: / justinbaldoni
Justin Baldoni Facebook: / justinbaldoni
Justin Baldoni Twitter: / justinbaldoni
Text Justin: +1 (310) 845-6909
Liz Plank: / feministabulous
Liz Plank TikTok: / lizplank
Liz Plank Facebook: / feministabulous
Liz Plank Twitter: / feministabulous
Site: www.elizabethplank.com/
Jamey Heath Instagram: / jamey_heath_
Jamey Heath TikTok: / jameyheath
Jamey Heath Twitter: / jamey_heath_
Jamey Heath Facebook: / jameyjaz
Site: www.jameyheath.com/
PRODUCED BY:
Wayfarer Studios: www.wayfarerstudios.com
Wayfarer Studios CZcams: / wayfarerentertainment
P&G Studios
Executive Producers: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Tarah Malhotra-Feinberg, Marc Pritchard, Anna Saalfeld, Chris Corcoran
This felt more like one 'side' talking (and not listening) rather than a debate. Terms like inequality, injustice and 'gap' have different meanings, depending on who you speak to, which are so inconsistent you can't do right for doing wrong. I believe it was a useful conversation but also we need to be more gracious in accepting what someone's own meaning was when they used a word, even if it doesn't align perfectly with our own. Although language matters, for me this conversation misses the point and unfortunately is an example of being pedantic unnecessarily to argue with people who are essentially on 'the same side'. Quite unproductive.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on the topic
I have to say there is a particularly tendency in the US as well to apply US-centric language use globally. Richard Reeves is British-educated, and won't use language in the same way as an American, especially terms which are loaded on one side of the Atlantic and not the other. Perhaps the panel could take account of their interviewee's natural language and focus on listening to his meaning, rather than insisting that he adapt his language to their sensibilities before they are willing to hear him.
We get this a lot in the UK with the term "Anglo Saxon", which is universally understood here to mean "the people who lived on the British Isles between the Romans and the Norman Conquest in 1066" but in America is sometimes understood in an ethnoracial sense to mean "the white Americans who governed the USA up until very recently, and maintained their dominance through racially oppressive policies". I've heard American scholars get really angry at British historians for using the term "Anglo-Saxon" in historical papers and the British scholars are just mystified, thinking "why would anyone have a problem with the Anglo-Saxons???" Well, sorry, but we now have centuries of scholarship using that term in a neutral way and we're not suddenly going to try and change all that to fit extremely recent American linguistic trends - you can approach it open-mindedly and have your perspective enriched by the research being discussed, or you can refuse to hear anything mildly offends your sensibilities and remain in ignorance.
I think the panelists were simply triggered, and attempted to obfuscate the actual issue over the semantics of "inequality".
The panel is conflating his language with previous systemic inequalities. Any systemic inequality of the past for women in Education (structural, legal) does not prevent a different systemic inequality for men in Education (societal, technological, psychological, organizational) now.
You can call it inequality or imbalance: they are synonymous in this context. Either way, it's a problem. Arguing over the semantics of the use of the word "inequality" in the context of previous inequalities (which were really injustices) misses the point.
I also think Reeves' response was correct. The only thing he was left to ponder was how to use a different word (which is frankly a little constraining, and not moving the solutions forward). But it's also a way to "box in" the discussion: another "trigger word" we all have to avoid.
If the canary dies in a coal mine, the miners don't debate about whether the bird should be called "Tweety Bird" or "Woodstock": they just evacuate the mine.
The issue (among many) is that there's a (roughly) 60% female participation in higher education, to male participation at 40%, and that this could (and probably IS) causing negative societal effects (for both sexes) that we are only now seeing. (And this excludes ratios of actually finishing with degrees or post graduate work/degrees.)
The issue is not whether there is a mathematical inequality: there can always be a possibility of 50.00001% vs 49.99999% either way. The issue is whether the inequality (and the trend of it) is relevant: Reeves work suggests it is.
It's a hangup/triggering on terminology, which seems like it's missing the point: Is/has the inequality gone too far (Answer: Yes), and how do we solve it (where the debate/discussion actually needs to be)? Yesterday's problems and solutions are not necessarily the problems we're faced with today, so it makes sense that we would need to find different solutions.
I'm struggling to see how this was a debate. It was definitely an argument over semantics. We are told we can use work like "gender disparity" to describe gender inequality, but we better not use the phrase "gender inequality" unless we are part of a minority. Seems sort of silly to me. Reeves responded quite well.
An argument over words does not deal with social Indifference concerning the struggles of Boys and Men. This is a serious challenge for the twenty first century.
Which needs to be dealt with truthfully.
I feel like the 3 panelists were attaching SO MUCH weight to inequality that most people do not. And this was Richard's nice way of telling them that they are doing something that nobody he talked to has done before.
I want to note that Liz's argument about men's inequality not existing bc it isn't codified in the law falls on it's face when you assume (hopefully) that Liz would acknowledge inequalities against groups she supports which are not codified in law
For instance, there is gender inequality in stem. That is not codified in law. But it is an injustice.
This is PRECISELY what Richard is talking about but wrt men and boys in HEAL.
Richard probably is doing too much work to make the panelists feel comfortable that he isn't pushing back as much as I would in the face of a pretty fundamental issue: being incapable of using the language of injustice as it relates to men or otherwise historically privileged groups.
Thank you for sharing this perspective
I saw this the same way you did. The panel wasn't really understanding his use of the word "inequality". Logically, the word inequality does not imply an injustice even though much of the time an injustice does lead to an inequality. But, I think he was right to stay as polite as he did; he is constructive and wants to actually change minds vs getting into a shouting match.
@@gwills24reeves is extremely intelligent and civil - he truly wants to help everyone without being political and turning it into a silly gender war
Policing language is just another way to silence -women- men.
I am not a men's rights advocate, and if anything I think I'm more of a feminist. But the lack of men in college I'm sure (though it's not definitive) can absolutely be tied to an injustice. It's just that that injustice is not patriarchal power, it's an unregulated free market that is having dire consequences on both men and woman.
An unregulated free market? In what sense? I'm not sure if you're talking in terms of economics or in some other context.
Economics is familiar with the concept of market failure - and explains that some processes need to be regulated for the free market to work optimally. On the other hand, once politicians get to regulating, it is not in the interest of the free market functioning, but in the interest of ideological direction. And then that ends badly.
However, I am not sure to what extent the above can be applied to the context of education. On the contrary, education is often subject to relatively strict regulation, which leads to rigidity.
What I've been finding out more about the subject of the problem in education - the problem (one of the problems) is a system where male students get lower grades even though they are either on par or better than their female counterparts on standardized tests.
How is it the free market? The main cause is clearly public schools and scholarships, which are largely government funded.
I think what she's saying especially at the end is so incredibly disengenuous. She's policing his language and not in any way reckoning with the incredibly shocking reality that men are failing at higher rates in our education system today than women were when title nine was founded. Does that not shock you? It shocked the hell out of me. They shut down the conversational space and refuse to engage with his ideas. As he has said elsewhere when men and boys face structural challenges we can't see that. He's calling us to our better angels to take what's happening seriously so we can reckon with it together. Because we're in this thing together
💕 well said
Both explanations make perfect sense in the context they are originally intended for. Liz provided her interpretation of it well - considering women were not encouraged, or in many cases allowed to pursue a higher education in the past. Gender inequality is normally associated with a regulation, or some form of resistance hindering that group of people from bettering themselves.
In Richard’s case - I can definitely see where fields such as education are portraying a higher percentage of female teachers; and can therefore be considered a form of gender inequality just from the numbers (I would maybe describe it as gender disparity). I think this statistic also reflects current cultural norms that have become associated with the sexes that may discourage certain people from pursuing those careers. A teacher is normally seen as a female position, whereas a principal is identified as a male role (I think there exists a lot of nuances and gender norms intertwined in this conversation).
It’s great to see these
conversations taking place though! At the end of the day I know there are a number of young men hurting and wanting to be seen. I hope we all can work together towards a better future 💛💛💛
The reason why there aren't more male teachers, is because men put more emphasis on earning potential. Teachers don't make a lot of money. That's why when men do get into education, it's primarily as college professors, in which you can get a lucrative salary, benefits, and tenure.
@@justicewilson7929 The flip side of it is that men are much more likely to be expected to be "breadwinners" if they are to have a family. They take more risk in taking a low wage position, even if it suits their personality better, since a woman is more likely to have the expectation of being a lower wage earner, or a non-wage earner, within a family structure. Of course this is all changing, however, there are two parts to the solution to having more men in the teaching profession of young kids: a) increase the wages (good for both men and women, AND kids), and b) decrease the emphasis men having there primary contribution to the family being solely financial, and placing more emphasis in family connection and caregiving (also good for both men and women, AND kids).
I think that this ‘debate’ was an extremely good example of why his colleagues and others tried to discourage him from writing his book about the facts he researched.
Picking up a single word and then weaponizing it to attack an imaginary opponent with unlimited loathing has been normalized across the nation, leading to discouragement in addressing real issues.
But it is structural!! Against MEN and Boys
Traditional masculinity ideology is what is "structural" and holding many men back from university attainment and living better and happier lives.
@@witwicky8308that is the most reductive and ignorant thing I've heard. How is "being a man" discouraging me as young man from advancing in my life. That's antithetical to the values and ideals of traditional masculinity
I’m finding that language is extremely important to Millennials and to understanding their world view.
We want to make sure if men are suffering we can still BLAME them for their problems
Reeves is using the term Inequality in a technical way, and they are trying to use it in a loaded way. He smartly makes the distinction between injustice and inequality and that they are combining the two, which makes the term Inequality, a loaded term. Reeves is then extremely courteous even though they don't seem to be quite understanding his point. Well done Mr Reeves.
I’m not sure you understand the nuances of verbiage and how connotations unavoidable.
@@anovosedlik we can say there is an "inequality" between the numbers 1 and 2 but that doesn't mean that the number 2 is better than 1 or that there is an injustice involved between the numbers 1 and 2. Think of it like that.
@@gwills24 ...you are either daft or disingenuous; I'm not sure which is worse. Have you heard of context? The word 'rational' as it is used for mathematical purposes is very different from its use in the sentence 'gwills24 is not a rational person because gwills24 refuses to consider the context of the term like inequality as it pertains to social structures and things like *inequality of outcome*'.
Boy she really put up a straw man argument to start off here-and the guys jumped in to make the talk all about semantics before Reeves even could say…anything
I'm glad they found the word disparity. Hopefully more people will hear his message and we will create a system that works for everyone.
We hope so too!
This feels like missing the point, a bit. I think the argument Reeves makes(in his book, and in other discussions I've heard) is a more subtle one, but one that nonetheless asserts, unambigusously, that there are real systemic, and structural issues in academic realms that not only disincentivize boys, but substantively reduce academic opportunities for boys in ways that DO equate to gender inequality. I wish this weren't framed as Reeves being schooled by more enlightened gender-thinkers - feels like using semantics to dodge Reeve's actual arguments. That being said, I'll check out the whole interview for context.
I think the term inequality works, even if you raise your bar for the definition to being caused by a systemic injustice. Boys are graded worse than girls on assignments, for the same work. And this has been known for over a decade, and it's found around the entire western world, that's systemic, right? How about the gap in funding for college between boys and girls, there are hundreds of scholarships for women that aren't available for men. I was told in HS I wouldn't have to pay if I was a woman, but as a man I would have to pay at least 1/2 of my degree. That's another systemic barrier that's greater for men than for women. I don't think there's a grand conspiracy, but this is factual information, mostly data-based, that satisfies that definition of 'gender inequality'.
Gender Bias in teachers’ grading: What is in the grade by Tomáš Protivínský, Daniel Münich
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us
1. Gender inequality doesn’t necessarily require sexism, it can simply mean unequal balance of genders for any reason.
2. Why are you assuming women were a minority in colleges due to discrimination, and men are now a minority not because of discrimination? There are many reasons the opposite of both can be argued.
Ex. Women were less likely to choose to go to college because many chose to focus on being mothers. The inequality could be in part caused by reasons other than discrimination.
And currently a major reason why there are less men graduating is because they are graded worse in by teachers (despite achieving equal scores in standardized tests) and receive way less scholarship money, these are arguably discrimination because it’s directly because they are male. So it can be a gender inequality caused by discrimination.
Okay, I don’t love that they are emphasizing the language over the issue itself but I guess I can understand why it matters to them to frame it in a way that recognizes the oppression of women. With that being said what are we going to to do about the gender disparity? Do they have any concrete answers for us because a lot of what I hear feels incredibly vague.
He had a nice way of saying, okay y’all are mixing up the terms I used even though I made it very clear. Therefor I’ll consider not using that word anymore.
Yeah I agree, I wish I could be more like that, I felt pretty triggered tbh…
Is it not an injustice to the individual boys especially black boys who are isolated in the public schools with no representation that looks like or understands what it's like to be them? While its not state sanctioned inequality, it is just has detrimental. We all have sons, brothers, maybe grandsons that will face this issue.
He used the term correctly. I hate that they are policing his language.
The idea that we would only call inequality inequality if it is produced in a specific way is dumb. Inequality is inequality, no matter the reason for it. If you want to argue that different reasons for inequality are more immoral than others, by all means, do that. But don't tell other people they can't use the most accurate word to describe the phenomenon they are trying to describe.
It is great to see someone finally pushing back on this reverse sexism argument. We definitely need to deal with all the negative impacts of sexism and gender inequality on men as well as women, but Reeves just wants to act like there is no such thing as power and oppression in the world. How can you study gender inequality and not know that "inequality" implies structural oppression? My guess is you don't read the vast feminist literature on the topic.
I want to also point out that it’s not clear whether this is not an injustice when it comes to men and boys - it may be an accidental “injustice” - just like some structural systems that appear to accidentally cause damage to racial communities.
As soon as someone says white and male suddenly it begins to be impossible to talk about the problem little boys, teens and men have. They’re privileged so what’s their problem? Of course it’s a problem that exists for all racial categories of boys with variations by race.
I think a neutral word that could be used instead of inequality, even though it means that things are unequal is true, would be imbalance. but I’d love to hear other suggestions as well, and also what anyone thinks about imbalance as an alternative to inequality
Thank you for sharing your perspective
So... Anything BUT the truth?? That's disgusting. While you're at it, let's remove all the headstones too, I wouldn't want the gravity of the situation to make you uncomfortable. Or keep laughing it off, that's a great suicide deterrent 👍
Wow.
Imbalance seems like a good choice
If people get this emotional over a word that they don't listen or add meaning that's not there it's the problem of the listener.
Inequality simply means things aren't equal. That's not the same as injustice.
His realisation at the end is "Oh, I better dumb this down a little for these people" 😂
“If more black woken than white women were getting degrees, would that be racial inequality? We wouldn’t call that racial inequality.”
Yes, we would. Obviously.
That was so beautiful and impactful!! Love it! ❤
Let’s use Kiz’s definition of inequality in the context of equality of outcomes.One of the reasons men are falling behind is affirmative action in respect of women.In my profession I’ve seen many instances of less qualified women taking positions over men simply because of their gender.How does this differ from Liz’s definition of legally enforced inequality against women 50 years ago?
In my opinion there should be equality of opportunity regardless of gender or race and that way everyone will be judged on their merits.The system we have now actively discriminates against men and Liz’s virtue signaling doesn’t change that
They derailed the whole debate by making it about the language used, so that they didn't have to talk about the actual facts. Disappointing.
The gap creates the inequality!!!! Wtf
The panelists are making a special pleading for women. The fact is fact: there is inequality. So when it is for women they can say inequality. But when it comes to women you have to even watch your words. So full of nonsense and entitlement.
Inequality can be a mathematical term, 8 is greater than seven, (8>7). No one is going to claim that eight is privileged or…….because it is stating a fact. Now the reason for an inequality between races, age groups or gender may quite possibly be racist, ageism or sexism but not necessarily. If you don’t go out of your way to weaponize the word then it works as Mr. Reeves intended 7:25
Thank you for sharing this perspective
@donaldrichards127 additionally, sometimes it doesn’t have to be 100% equal and as you mentioned there can be many reasons for that. Then the question becomes: is the resulting inequality unjust? Meaning, inequality is just a statement of facts representing a gap in some metric and might be bad but unintentional and injustice is a systematic problem, I would say.
The fact that Reeves effortlessly uses the synonym INJUSTICE to describe what these amateur panelists were dscribing tells me that this discussion is in its infancy.
It is goinf to be a very long time before discussion can take place about these issues.
The public are not ready for this at all. This discussion is 10 years too early. Feminist leaning types are not ready for this. Not en masse.
There are govt funds for women going to college. Yes there's discrimination against men.
this is a perfect exhibit of a productive debate. nobody was right or wrong, and the purpose was to achieve mutual understanding above anything else. it’s imperative to employ and promote the ethics of healthy debates in extra-educational (i.e; social, political) settings in order for our attempts at communication and activism to bear fruit.
Nah, Liz Plank is squarely in the wrong. Reeves is focused on the facts but she is focused on controlling the language. One is truth focused, the other is agenda focused.
This was not a productive debate. There was no mutual understanding. They are talking about this like they know and could be able to explain why men are struggling, it’s a weird topic and they clearly can’t since they never did. They did not even get to a real conversation on men’s issues
Poor men throughout history were not the oppressors. Black men are struggling even more than white men right now.
DISAGREE. A major reason why Men are under-represented in teaching is a result of them not feeling safe in the face of possible False Accusations of sexual harassment/assault or misogyny, because Due Process provisions for accused men have been weakened or removed. That is DEFINITELY INJUSTICE Richard. The *form* of systemic injustice has changed and is often less overt.
Thank you for sharing you're opinion on the subject
Good struggle session!
Communism is real in America.
*Et si l'on utilisait les mots pour leur sens premiers plutôt que pour le sens que l'on souhaite leur donner ?*
you guys are so refreshing
Thank you for listening
Extremely disappointed in Reeves here. People in this debate will just bend over to these obvious attempts to redefine the language, rather than actually stick to the facts.
Men have been left out and downright blamed a little bit too much.....a tad bit too much to the point where they've decided to go their own way. Andrew Tate is breathing new life into men accepting themselves.
You'll see some of the men featured in this podcast like Justin with toned biceps etc. They'd be hypocrites if they claim to break down gender barriers while working out at the gym to hone in their masculine natural features. Top G!
You are really not grown and refuse to look deep into yourself. Instead you stay in self gratification which ultimately stunts your growth. Please help yourself and other men and see at least that a man that is arrested for doing really bad things is NOT a role model for ANYONE
@Oppygirly go Ahead, villify me for not suiting your way.
We all should just be alike, think alike and be like robots instead of using our brains to think independently.
Expecting an apology or a low-blow insult as you offensively made?
5:20 so I just wanted to say to Richard Reeves the difference between male inequality and female inequality: male inequality is truly only relatable to other males and no where near comparison to female inequality which is and has been for some 2000 + years during which females went from being slaves, servants, breeders, witches, prostitutes, and worse of all property of man. It took affluent (aka well bred, educated - when allowed - females, 🎉and well married which was more likely pre-arranged by their fathers. The dilemma for the educated females was to be thankful for a “good, kind man who was not vicious” or would “learn to love and care for this stranger”in most cases not to mention some heinous age gaps and/or multiple “wives”. In 16 century Venice there was a women who was a well bred (aka good family) but no “dowry” and was forced to become a courtesan (basically a prostitute) to support her family including her older brother to buy his commission into the army. Her name was Veronica Franco and she became an infamous courtesan. She even “slept” with the King of France in order to guarantee their support in the war they were about to embroiled. When the Black Plague hit shortly thereafter the “The Grand Inquisition” began enforced by the Catholic Church to chase the “filth” aka prostitutes, beggars and thieves (but not the rats!) from the cities and those who were captured had to “Repent their sins” and “confess to witchcraft” - the penalty being burning alive at the stake. Sorry for the long little story but the reality for all women, titled or not was oppression, submissiveness, and zero autonomy. It’s systemic in all humans. When you repeat this behavior over and over it becomes part of our collective dna. We rinse and repeat the same tired tropes of yester-year, over and over because males have always been in charge of societies aka the never ending patriarchy with its endless wars, pseudo-dominance, viciousness, and need to oppress any and all.
You know it took women, affluent women of society to literally March, picket, face incarceration, hunger strike , commit terroristic acts like explosives and arson on “mans real estate property” and throw themselves in front of a horse race and killed. That one got their attention! But it took a whole lifetime for the og advocates of women’s suffrage to get their rights: first to education, then the right to vote. Susan B Anthony was raised a Quaker but chose to fight for females right to autonomy. She spent her whole life traveling back and forth across the US convincing and educating women from all walks of life and hierarchical nations, that they must demand they get a voice. She was supported by her father in this mission and died in her 80s, 12 years before women in America were granted their rights to autonomy, voting, running for office and access to education in 1919. Unfortunately, we were never given a constitutional amendment like the previous slaves had fought for with Frederick Douglass to get the 13 amendment passed and ratified (of course the Jim Crow era followed that which was a heinous backlash in American society) but not only SBA but also Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who both championed with Frederick Douglass to achieve the freedom of slaves. Unfortunately, he turned his back on them and no longer supported their “women’s right to vote, be educated and own property, including their own children. Let that sink in when you talk of “Men’s inequality”.
In conclusion, if you separated out all males born with blond hair from all males born, and put them aside into the female camp, allowing all other males to continue with all their “male rights” ……. Now that is a better analogy for Men’s inequality.
Liz explained this beautifully and that’s why Richard understood it. I also want to add that in this context, equality refers to equal opportunity in the process rather than purely a numerical standpoint in the outcome. Thus, even though there may be fewer men in higher education, it’s not for a lack of equal opportunity. This is also why even though there can be gender inequality that favors men in a space that has more women than before because that can also be caused by them having to work twice as hard to get to those position.
No there is not equal opportunity for men. You actually have to talk about the data and specific issues behind why that is the case on any issue it is.
We as a society right now are just not capable of having an honest conversation about men’s issues and that is one reason why men don’t have equal opportunity
Are we sure? There may in fact be unequal opportunities and injustices taking root right now-men might be being marginalized. Not 100% sure, but, maybe we could look into that? See what’s up?
Things happen for a reason more often than for “no reason at all”
Well, this entire conversation proves just how right REEVES is, and how insane and unreasonable millennials have become…
the panel sucks.
Someone described to me recently the notion of seeing overarching systems of power and control as a way to orient viewpoint. For example, white superiority is a system of power and control that drives racism and colonialism. So, keeping those systems in mind, black women getting more degrees than white women becomes equity and creation of equality in society. It's a step towards "correcting" or rebalancing that harmful system of power.
I'm a white woman of European descent and also want to say that a foundational thing that has helped me move forward in Anti-racism work is admitting that I am racist- because I have that inherited and ingrained colonial mindset. Coming out of denial to acceptance of that allows me to name it, claim it and start to tame it. So, I wonder if something men can do to really move us towards gender equality is admit they are sexist. Then engage in systematically replacing that sexism with something else.
Is Jamie aware that he mansplained Liz’s argument? I believe Liz was doing a phenomenal job explaining her perspective and Richard was able to thoughtfully consider his choice of language without any additional input.