PanPolitical

Pan-Political is a podcast exploring what the next wave of the gender equality movement should include: Care and action for all genders and their issues.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

Welcome to Pan-Political — a podcast and movement that cares about all genders and the issues that affect them. We explore bold and sometimes radical ideas to help shape the next wave of the gender equality movement. We're determined to do it without shaming anyone. But we don't believe that simply articulating the current gender-based problems is enough; we believe we have to get underneath what's causing these problems, and find solutions, and that takes us to some truly radical and unconventional places.

I'm Rog, the key figure behind Pan-Political. I'm getting about in a cis male body (so "he / him" is fine), but I don't love being defined by gender (so I love "they / them". I also have a sense of humour about pronouns and appreciate how divisive they can be, so don't worry about getting them wrong - we've got much juicier topics to talk about).
I come with decades of obsession about gender and equality. I have 30 years of experience in facilitation and psychology, including 14 years as a sex educator before committing to Pan-Political.

The intro episode of our podcast is, not surprisingly, your best spot to start:
https://t.co/SImgOQAjmp

For the full archive, search 'Pan-Political' on your player, or follow https://t.co/2hXM39VLym

The latest episode will be in thread below.

Come along for a panoramic view of gender equality! And drop a reply against any episode — we're keen to hear your thoughts.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

I care about women and their issues.
I care about men and their issues.

There. That was a lot easier than you might expect.
Problem solved.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

"But if we want men to get better at sex and relationships, and we're not willing to give them access to women's spaces in order to get that education, then we're going to have to do something about homophobia and the things that make it almost impossible to be a male sex educator.

I just can't resist this metaphor. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, my friends. No one is winning in the current arrangement. Dave does his best. He hopes for good connections, but the gap remains. And the very partners who want emotionally intelligent, sexually capable men wind up just being frustrated again.

The deeper point here comes down, like so many things, to privilege. It never feels like you've got privilege, but it's often evident from the outside. And I guess I wanna say that through a variety of circumstances and really hard-won battles, that women, on average, are well ahead of men when it comes to sexuality.

It's a privilege, and we need to find a way to share it rather than just humiliating Dave for an education he doesn't have access to."

Quote is from the current Pan-Political podcast episode on gender separate spaces. Listen free wherever you get your podcasts, or here: https://t.co/ATR5Vx4OdC

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

"You see, not only does Dave already know that spaces with women are more likely to be good spots to learn what he needs to learn, but, and here's the rub, like most of us, as shown by inherent bias tests, Dave doesn't actually like men. I'm gonna say that again.

Most of us don't actually like men all that much, and we do not like the idea of men gathering in men's spaces, as shown by those three words that we covered in the first episode of this trilogy. We regard men's spaces as suspicious, threatening, and problematic.

But when Dave's got a choice between the women's movement, who are making jokes about him, who are threat assessing him at every moment, who are denying he's got any real issues of concern, and who are telling him to both be more like them and then telling him to nick off, and then there's this other group that Dave's found who have some ideas that Dave agrees with a little bit and others that he definitely doesn't agree with, at least to begin with... Well, he gets seduced because one group who Dave agrees with is unfortunately not sending him a very positive message about who he is and his place in the world.

The other group, even though he might not agree with their ideas, are being much more validating and accepting of him, even being positive and inviting towards him, which is not something he's experienced much of before. The seduction is a little bit irresistible.

Meanwhile, the same people that instructed or implied that Dave should nick off are bemoaning the rise of the men's movement or the manosphere as they call it. They're finding it hard to understand where the good men are and why so many men are joining causes that are worsening women's position in the world, and they're not realizing that they are in part responsible for pushing men in that direction. So we find ourselves in a bit of a tragic irony of a position.
If it was the patriarchy that came up with the idea of men getting together to work against the wellbeing of women, it's now the current gender war and the desire to on some level just get men out of the way that is doing patriarchy's bidding for them by sending a constant supply of additional men."

Quote is from the current Pan-Political podcast episode on gender separate spaces. Listen free wherever you get your podcasts, or here: https://t.co/ATR5Vx4OdC

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

"This is one of the supreme ironies of telling men to "sort it out yourselves" when they ask for help. We're also in bitter opposition to the manosphere, which is effectively anything involving men looking at men's issues. So when we as a community look unfavorably at men when they hang out with other men to talk about men's stuff, after we've just finished telling them that they should sort out their problems themselves, all we're doing is cutting off all of their options, and then we sit around wondering why men just don't get it."

Quote is from the current Pan-Political podcast episode on gender separate spaces. Listen free wherever you get your podcasts, or here: https://t.co/ATR5Vx4OdC

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

"Social media plays a pretty evil role in all of this (the gender war). The algorithms have discovered that we respond well to information that passionately affirms who we are and what we believe, or that ridicules or misrepresents people with different opinions. Social media feeds into and feeds off separatism, division, and a desire to never have a diversity of opinion anywhere near us unless we're in the process of humiliating it. When we spend a lot of time in separative spaces, whether that's out in the real world or just spaces and bubbles on social media, we lose our ability to see outside of that bubble and relate to other people."

Quote is from the current Pan-Political podcast episode on gender separate spaces. Listen free wherever you get your podcasts, or here: https://t.co/ATR5Vx4OdC

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

Direct links can be found on our X profile, also.
Spotify: https://t.co/UAePhV4fuK
Apple: https://t.co/hGBjX4hnZu
Right now, in your browser: https://t.co/6KhqGV5rva

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

Men: You’ve backed women’s rights, and the women around you, for years. You’re not about to join the manosphere.

But you're also not imagining it: The landscape is complicated. You're joked about, you're attacked, you're treated as a risk. You're aware world isn’t always patterned around you the way the slogans say it is.

You’re looking for something else, that cares for women’s issues AND men’s issues. No nastiness. No one-sidedness. No denials, no race to the bottom either.

It exists. It’s a podcast. It's interested in solutions.
Search 'Pan-Political' wherever you get podcasts. Direct links in the first reply.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

"There's a killer twist going on in the pursuit of gender equality that I haven't heard many people talking about. At the moment, the broad cultural message to men is something like, "You're not great at this emotional and relational side of life. You need to learn the skills that women have traditionally carried, like emotional connection, communication, a more integrated way of being."

And frankly, I agree with that direction. Just as women in earlier decades had to step into traditionally male spaces and pick up those skills and privileges, men now need to step into traditionally female spaces to get access to those skills and privileges.

The problem is, you can't learn about this stuff from a book or a Ted Talk. You have to be around people that are good at it and learn from them in real time. But here's the trap. A huge number of women have no interest in sharing their spaces with men. They're simply saying, "Figure it out for yourselves.  This isn't our problem to solve." Individual men can then try and work it out for themselves, which doesn't work, or he can do as instructed and join up with other men. At this point, ironically, he'll get accused of being a part of the manosphere, and what he finds there might just be a case of the blind leading the blind.

So he's stuck, and women are stuck too because men are not learning the skills and qualities that women want them to learn. In the nineteen fifties, women realized they needed access to what men had. I think we're entering a time now where men are starting to realize that they need what women have."

Quote is from the current Pan-Political podcast episode on gender separate spaces. Listen free wherever you get your podcasts, or here: https://t.co/ATR5Vx4OdC

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

Yes, thanks for posting this.
Some of the under-diagnosis of depression comes down to differences in male / female socialisation; boys are encouraged to go out and be active, girls to stay in and use their words.
If boys even make it to counselling, they're likely to be viewed as a behaviour disorder, because they're less likely to use the feeling and vulnerability languages, which is what the counsellor and DSM are looking for.
Unfortunately, the underlying condition is there nevertheless, and it's going to built up and come out as an explosion at some stage. Inwardly, as suicide or risky behaviours. Outwardly, as violence.
So it's better for everyone to stop socialising girls and boys differently, but given that that's already happened, we need to pay more attention to boys and depression. (Pairs well with paying more attention to girls and autism. Podcast episode on this coming up in 3 months, thus I'm excited by the topic!).

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

"I got one of the chatbots to give me three words that explain how we regard the idea of women gathering with women to discuss women's issues. The three words that came back were empowering, valid, and celebrated. Meanwhile, the same prompt for how we feel about men gathering with men to discuss men's issues, those three words were suspicious, threatening, and problematic.

There's something validating and also kind of disturbing about having the starkness of this difference spelled out so clearly. It's a difference I've always felt when I've been in conversation with people or when I've written an article or done public speaking or something like that. These two sets of three words are really nice in that they're validating of the experiences I've had, but they're also disturbing in showing just how polarized and biased we are as a culture."

Quote is from the current Pan-Political podcast episode on gender separate spaces. Listen free wherever you get your podcasts, or here: https://t.co/ATR5Vx4OdC

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

"Here's where it becomes about a small step for a woman being a great leap for mankind. Since there's a massive tilt in the numbers of women's spaces compared to the number of men's spaces, for an individual woman who wants something like support, connection, friendship, or a sense of fitting in, it's a small step, and one that probably makes a lot of sense to join a women's group of some description or to start one from scratch.

But in doing so, and making it for women only, it now becomes a great leap for mankind to ever get access to that space and the experiences and the privileges that come with it. And yes, of course, exactly the same thing plays out in reverse, or at least it has done. There are less male-only spaces now, but if we go back to the 1950s, and to a degree today, it made sense for men to get what they wanted from male-only spaces.

It was a small step for them as individuals, which made it a giant leap for womankind to get access. This is the conundrum. When it comes to gender-separate spaces, what's easiest and best for the individual, and almost impossible to argue against, is not best for us all if it's an egalitarian, free, and non-sexist society that we're seeking."

Quote is from the current Pan-Political podcast episode on gender separate spaces: https://t.co/ATR5Vx4OdC

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

I agree with you, for the most part - especially what you say about emotional intelligence, and how people are treated.
However, men and women are not completely difference species; we have more in common than we do in difference.
In practice, enough women respond favourably to genital pictures to keep the practice alive. The behaviour gets rewarded. There are whole online groups and communities dedicated to it.
And it also happens in reverse, from women, to men.
I hear that it doesn't work for you, and that's great. But to say much beyond that is a gender generalisation.

But again, yay for championing those other things as the things we should be focussing on. I agree!

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

I see it a little differently...
In the 1950's, we had specialised into roles and privileges that could be categorised by gender.
Women realised they'd like the male roles and privileges, and have made astounding progress in realising those goals. A lot has shifted.
Men, meanwhile, haven't really yet realised that they'd like the female roles and privileges. So they haven't made any progress, and women aren't exactly keen to share at the moment (a bit like men weren't, initially, in the 1950's).
So both men and women have got some standard raising to be doing, in my viewpoint.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

What a great example of polarisation and revolution (which is the subject of an episode in a couple of months, btw).

The author sees that all men are a part of the manosphere (and patriarchy, I'm guessing).
And that the solution is to swing the pendulum over to women.

I suggest we need to be more open to seeing ways that the current situation is a lot more complicated than that. And that the future wave of the gender movement needs to intentionally be inclusive of all genders, not just repeat a pattern of one side looking after their own. (Which, as I say, is an oversimplification of what's going on at the moment).

[Extremist Feminist @ExtremstFemnist]

When I refer to the ‘manosphere’ …

I’m talking about the World.
ALL OF IT.

The Next +10,000 years Belong to WOMENKIND.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

@Rapunzel_hnn That's definitely not the way I see it.
Most abuse is coercive, psychological, manipulative. None of which leaves bruises, but all of which can be horrible.
Physical violence is just one form of violence; we're a pretty violent species, really.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

Hey gang,
Love the show (more on that in a min) but there's a piece of data I believe you've got wrong, and it's damaging and hurtful.
You spoke for a while about the "women assaulted in Ubers every 8 minutes" data. The data behind this has been reported really badly, in a sensationalist and fear-based way, and we need to stop repeating it.
The real data is that some kind of a complaint is made every 8 minutes. This includes false complaints (from people wanting refunds), verbal comments on appearance, complaints against women and men, complaints against drivers and riders, or some other not nice, but not horrific situation.
The serious category of incident is much less - 12K versus 400K over the same sample period for the above category. Even the serious category is still pretty broad, including a variety of things that are not what people think of when they hear "an assault every 8 minutes". I did some quick maths, and in short, one of these serious incidents happen once every 10,000 journeys. Anything above zero is not good, but this is a long, long way from the number you quoted. (The data was revealed in a US court case, it was previously sealed, it's easy to check for yourselves).
Yes, there are many reasons why Robotaxis are better than Ubers, but we need to stop using this line as one of those reasons.
It's really offensive and painful for Uber drivers, and also men, more generally.
Plus, it's not empowering women, when they're too scared to leave the house because of the reporting that was done, which you repeated today.

Thanks for reading.
Now... You folks are excellent, providing an excellent service. I particularly like it when you're honest instead of just going with the party line - as a consequence, I have high trust in what you offer, and listen every week. Please keep it up! (Perhaps without being down on men / male Uber drivers!).
Thanks.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

What happens when Dave (and the other lads) get told to sort out their lack of relationship and sexuality skills by themselves?
...They miss the best learning opportunities. The blind lead the blind. Homophobia gets in the way.
And women get frustrated (again), because none of this works.
We need to share our privileges, not hoard them.

This short is taken from the latest Pan-Political podcast episode, on gender separate spaces.
Search for 'Pan-Political' wherever you get your podcasts from, including Spotify and Youtube.
Comment below!

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

Great points, thanks for posting them.
The only possible solution to stuff like this is equal policies, applied equally... surely?
It reminds me of Facebook's policy - you can joke about killing men, but not about killing women. (Don't know if this is still current, but it was a few years back).

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

@FemCondition Yeah, it's a funny thing; we live in a world apparently stacked against women, and yet more of both women and men have positive biases towards women.
I don't think both things can be true.

[PanPolitical @Pan_Political]

Is it possible that a common move that individual women make - because it makes a lot of sense! - has negative impacts, down the track, for women (and men!)?

This short is taken from the current Pan-Political podcast series on gender separatism. Search for it in any podcast player, or... Go direct to it on Spotify: https://t.co/PG2IpDJU7S
Or on Youtube: https://t.co/1V4iCMYIjK
Or click on this podcast feed, or paste it into your player: https://t.co/8Db8c4vDKS