What are men's roles and responsibilities in the feminist project for gender egalitarianism?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The #MeToo and the Time's Up movements have captured the urgency to address systemic manifestations of sexism, patriarchy, and misogyny in all aspects of society. Among the myriad discourses that have been catalyzed by these contemporaneous movements includes one related to the role of men in achieving gender egalitarianism. Men are allocated unearned privilege associated with being a man in a culture that is inherently phallogocentric. This fact alone charges men with the responsibility to account for the discursive and the institutional systems that afford them unearned privilege at certain relational costs that must be borne by women and, concomitantly, the feminine. The #MeToo and the Time's Up movements—which have initiated greater cultural recognition of the problems associated with establishing a society that is predicated on androcentric values—mark a pressing need, one that is much overdue, for men to interrogate the inequitable ways in which gender configures contemporary social relations. As a contribution to this effort, this article draws on reflexive accounts from men academics broadly invested in the study of gender and organizations and who are at different stages of their careers and from dispersed geographical areas, to respond to the question: What are men's roles and responsibilities in the feminist project for gender egalitarianism? In answering this question, these academics, individually and collectively, identify paths for allyship moving forward.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it