PanPolitical

Pan-Political episode 109: There’s so much more to privilege than meets the eye right now. We all know an honest look at privilege is a powerful tool for spotting discrimination and building real fairness. Our current understanding — especially around gender — gets a lot right. But there are stubborn gaps it just can’t explain… and those gaps sit exactly where gender equality feels most stuck. In this episode we go deeper. We fill in the missing pieces, honour every hard-won issue, and move toward practical solutions. No one gets whacked with the privilege stick. Nothing valuable is thrown out — we’re just adding what was missing. Listen now: rss.com/podcasts/pan-p… Does this deeper take on privilege help you make sense of your own life and other people’s? Do you agree? What did we miss? Drop your thoughts below — this thread is for the curious, not the combative ❤️ #panpolitical #genderequality #genderissues #privilege #equality #intersectional

@KeysKey03769891 @clairlemon @sociologyWV Agreed, men are more (physically) violent than women. And the less that a man's traditional privileges are lining up in his favour ("downwardly mobile"), the more likely he to use or encounter violence. Violence becomes an indicator of complexity of privilege.

@Pan_Political @clairlemon @sociologyWV 1. Men are more violent than women. 2. A downwardly mobile man is experiencing something worse than a downwardly mobile woman. For the latter, it doesn't do nearly as much harm to her marriage/family prospects.

It's not poverty that drives men to violence, but the experience of losing status. Fascinating piece from the sociologist @sociologyWV on the link between downward mobility and violent crime quillette.com/2026/05/14/dan…

Watch and share this on YouTube, if you'd rather: youtube.com/shorts/qz7as-P…

We know men are privileged. And yet... so many signs of something else going on. How can this be explained? What do you think about how your gender's privileges make, or don't make, happiness available to you? Comment below, or against the post about the full episode this short was taken from: x.com/Pan_Political/… #genderequality #panpolitical #genderissues #privilege

Thanks for writing this. Here's a funny thought: Given that the workforce consists of about 34% women, a workplace that achieves 50% female representation has actually stolen from other workplaces, who will have even lower female representation. Long-term, the solution in my opinion is for men and women (in hetero parenting scenarios) to have a good an honest chat about who's going to stay home, and who's going to go to work. Both have pluses and minuses, of course. If this was paired with quotas to get more men in the family environment, many, many problems would be solved.

I spoke with two senior UN officials in New York City, in town for the UN General Assembly in September, who revealed a troubling reality: the UN’s obsession with one-sided gender equality has morphed into systemic discrimination—against men. Within the organization, hiring and promotion decisions right up to the top are increasingly driven by identity rather than merit. If you're a young man today hoping to secure a job in the UN, there's no doubt that it will be difficult. Gender parity has already been reached and maintained since 2018 (50% women) in senior-level roles, and 60% of field staff are women today. Yet when there’s a selection process, those hiring must indicate that women have received due consideration and, in the case that a man is preferred, 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺. As a woman myself, I find this infantilizing. It suggests that women need a handicap to compete, undermining the very equality the UN claims to champion. Ignoring men’s issues while mandating justifications for hiring them isn’t equality. That's bias and sexism dressed up in progressive jargon. Read more: eviemagazine.com/post/the-un-is…

Yes. Last time I did a deep dive on the Ukraine numbers (~June last year), 100 out of 70,000 deaths on the Ukraine side were female. And 4 our of 27,000 on the Russian side were female. So that's ~1000:100,000 for women:men. Which would make it not just a war on men, but genocide. Meanwhile, the war between Israel and Palestine generally gets reported as a "war on women", because about 52 to 55% (approximate, not sure) of deaths are female. (Sorry for promo, but touched on this in ep 108 of podcast)

@UN_Women 55,000 men, estimated, have died in combat in this war. 10,000 estimated male civilians, boys and men. 4,000 estimated female civilians, girls and women. No, I think it's safe to say "women and girls NOT most impacted."

After more than 1,500 days of the full-scale invasion of #Ukraine, the war has become even deadlier for women and girls. Yet, women continue to hold communities together. See how @UN_Women is taking action to support women and girls: unwo.men/jNsB50YYexs

Or watch and share this on Youtube: youtube.com/shorts/TBsNrm7…

Some privileges set you up for happiness, some don't. Some set you up for career and success, some don't. How does gender fit in? What do you think about how your gender's privileges make, or don't make, happiness available to you? Comment below, or against the post about the full episode this short was taken from: x.com/Pan_Political/… #genderequality #panpolitical #genderissues #privilege

@LisaBritton Thanks for posting. Yeah, it's funny how the assumption is that the existing system - patriarchy? - looks after men. Yet men die younger, have more preventable diseases, and (in Australia) receive just 2% of gendered services funding. Reality doesn't match beliefs.

Yet we have zero federal offices for men’s health while we have eight for women. We should probably be putting more energy, compassion and resources into our men’s health. No?

Or watch and share this short on Youtube: youtube.com/shorts/lIuDOiK…

I’m right there with you — I fully support every program and policy we currently have to stop violence against women. From clearly naming the problem, through education campaigns, better policing, smarter judicial responses, support services, and behavioural change programs… all of it. These efforts matter. The one big limitation I see is this: none of them actually stop the violence from being created in the first place. Very few of them reach back into the intergenerational patterns that shape violent men — because, for the most part, that root-cause work simply isn’t treated as a priority. At Pan-Political we believe we can do both: keep protecting women today and invest in preventing the next generation of violence for everyone’s sake. Because when we care about breaking the cycle for boys and young men too, we’re not taking anything away from women — we’re finally giving the whole problem the complete solution it deserves. What do you think about this approach to stopping violence? Comment below, or against the post about the full episode this short was taken from: x.com/Pan_Political/… #genderequality #endviolence #stopviolenceagainstwomen #panpolitical #genderissues

If you'd like to view or share on Youtube: youtube.com/shorts/mCT8tXF…

Men experience around twice as much physical violence as women in Australia—yet for the last 20+ years, every major federal and state government (and opposition) has poured meaningful funding into programs specifically to stop violence against women. Dedicated efforts for men? Almost none. At Pan-Political, we care about everyone. We want every person—man, woman, or anyone else—to live free from violence. That's why we're fully in favour of keeping all the existing policies and programs that protect women. But here's the thing: while we keep normalising or ignoring violence against men, we're never going to truly solve violence against women. The two are connected. We need to value stopping violence against all genders equally. It's the only way we'll make real progress for any of them. What do you think about this approach to stopping violence? Comment below, or against the full episode this short was taken from: x.com/Pan_Political/… #genderequality #endviolence #stopviolenceagainstwomen #panpolitical #genderissues

Or watch and share this short on Facebook: youtube.com/shorts/HBjTnTA…

Women = valuable humans we care about. Men = problems we complain about. Guess what that recipe creates? More hurt, more disconnection, more violence. I’m not interested in adding to it. I’d rather look at root causes with curiosity and care—for everyone. That’s why I call this Pan-Political: caring about the issues that affect all genders. If you’re tired of one-sided gender talk, this might be for you. Leave your thoughts below, or against the original release of the full episode this short is taken from: x.com/Pan_Political/…

@KonstantinKisin Thanks for the share. People talk like the only privileges that matter are the ones that get us into career, jobs, finance, politics, etc. And they ARE huge privileges. But the privileges people really want, that have major positive impact, are the ones that give them family.

It's amazing how many people complain about parenting and their kids. Being a dad is literally the best thing in the world.

Or watch (or share) this short on Facebook, if you'd rather: youtube.com/shorts/sMa_pS4…

Gosh this is bleak. It's no wonder violent men are still a problem; our current system relies on us creating more of them, and has mixed interests in stopping them. And our collective disinterest in doing anything about the violence that happens to men is just sending them a message that on some level is interpreted as meaning that violence is okay. Things like this feel like they're getting worse, not better. If the short piques your interest, a post with a link to the full episode is here: t.co/SImgOQAjmp

Mifepristone: I am so sorry to women that reproductive choices are being taken away from you. I understand why this decision lands hard for you on many levels, and I would be—I am—enraged, also. Unfortunately, the reporting around this, isn't helping; there's lots of “men are taking away women’s choices” framing that paints this as pure misogyny and patriarchy. It's very divisive, us-versus-them framing, and it pits everyone against everyone. This is sad because there's so much more to it than this framing suggests, and the truth is much less divisive. If you've ever been the male partner of a woman who is pregnant, and you're doing the right thing—by which I mean you're being involved, caring, supportive, and a decent person—then you know that this decision around mifepristone isn't a war on women, it's a war on everyone. You know that not only do you have understandably less involvement in the termination decision itself (on account of it not being your body, even if the outcome of the decision will likely impact the rest of your life), you are also told what to do by the state. There's another data point worth considering: Votes within government—the people who are telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies—fall more down party lines than they do down gender lines. Thankfully, we have much better representation of women in government these days, and I look forward to that number increasing. But when it comes to abortion, although female representatives are more supportive than men, it's only marginal*; the major difference is in accordance with the party that a representative belongs to. So, the correct headline would be something like "People are telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies." A facetious twist that makes as much sense as most of the existing headlines I'm seeing—and would be approximately as accurate—would be "Women are telling men they deserve no choice in abortion." The world looks more complex, but also more accurate and better, when we look at it from the perspective of how all genders are impacted. That's what Pan-Political is about. An episode on this exact topic is coming up soon. Meanwhile, have a listen here: media.rss.com/pan-political/… *Sorry, working from memory, can't quote my data source. It was US-based data, so my comment refers to the U political system.