Skip to content

Why is the manosphere on the rise? UN Women sounds the alarm over online misogyny

Technology
55 35 0
  • A growing network of online communities known collectively as the “manosphere” is emerging as a serious threat to gender equality, as toxic digital spaces increasingly influence real-world attitudes, behaviours, and policies, the UN agency dedicated to ending gender discrimination has warned.

  • A growing network of online communities known collectively as the “manosphere” is emerging as a serious threat to gender equality, as toxic digital spaces increasingly influence real-world attitudes, behaviours, and policies, the UN agency dedicated to ending gender discrimination has warned.

    According to the Movember Foundation, a leading men’s health organization and partner of UN Women, two-thirds of young men regularly engage with masculinity influencers online.

    While some content offers genuine support, much of it promotes extreme language and sexist ideology, reinforcing the idea that men are victims of feminism and modern social change.

    So, 2/3 of young men are risking to become incels, right? Because it is hard to imagine a young girl who is looking for a partner with hyperfocus on his own masculinity as well as a partner, who portraits himself as victim? That is sad...

  • A growing network of online communities known collectively as the “manosphere” is emerging as a serious threat to gender equality, as toxic digital spaces increasingly influence real-world attitudes, behaviours, and policies, the UN agency dedicated to ending gender discrimination has warned.

    I thought that was dying years ago.

  • A growing network of online communities known collectively as the “manosphere” is emerging as a serious threat to gender equality, as toxic digital spaces increasingly influence real-world attitudes, behaviours, and policies, the UN agency dedicated to ending gender discrimination has warned.

    It's quite simple, gender equality should stand for equal opportunity for both genders, but it's not. I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority. And worst of all, equal opportunity should not mean we will hire a less competent woman that a more competent men, to fill out some 50/50 quota.

    This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.

  • It's quite simple, gender equality should stand for equal opportunity for both genders, but it's not. I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority. And worst of all, equal opportunity should not mean we will hire a less competent woman that a more competent men, to fill out some 50/50 quota.

    This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.

    I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority

    Genuinely curious, got any examples of “traditional female majority places” that masculine individuals cannot enter/participate in?

  • I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority

    Genuinely curious, got any examples of “traditional female majority places” that masculine individuals cannot enter/participate in?

    Not OP, but positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.
    It's not like males cannot reach those positions, but there are social obstacles to that.
    To make an example from my country, in Italy primary school teachers are > 90% female. I believe in kindergarten they reach 97 or 98%.
    This is also partially the result of strict gender roles than discriminate both men and women in terms of caring for children (I.e., women are de facto forced to do that, men are pushed away), which then reinforces the social practice of women doing all the caring jobs.

    This is IMHO a problem for both men and women, but probably it's not from the same perspective as what OP meant...

  • Not OP, but positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.
    It's not like males cannot reach those positions, but there are social obstacles to that.
    To make an example from my country, in Italy primary school teachers are > 90% female. I believe in kindergarten they reach 97 or 98%.
    This is also partially the result of strict gender roles than discriminate both men and women in terms of caring for children (I.e., women are de facto forced to do that, men are pushed away), which then reinforces the social practice of women doing all the caring jobs.

    This is IMHO a problem for both men and women, but probably it's not from the same perspective as what OP meant...

    positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.

    I’m sure it varies from country to country, but in the US women could not study medicine until the late 1800’s and the US Army did not allow female physicians until 1940.

    It’s not unlikely to think we have many people today who were alive before women practicing as physicians was common place.

    I’m convinced it’s less of a matter of a group “dominating” a space but rather being pigeonholed/forced into it due to a lack of options, and these circumstances have impact that are still felt to this day.

    I’m not sure about Italy but in a lot of the US becoming a school teacher requires a college degree and has wages that do not keep up with the cost of living.

    You can look up articles of teachers losing their jobs for doing sex work or provocative modeling to earn extra income because their job does not pay enough.

    Doesn’t seem like that big of a win? Unless I’m missing something?

  • It's quite simple, gender equality should stand for equal opportunity for both genders, but it's not. I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority. And worst of all, equal opportunity should not mean we will hire a less competent woman that a more competent men, to fill out some 50/50 quota.

    This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.

    I feel like a Cassandra since I was warning about this for years now.

    The gender equality narrative got too focused on excluding men specifically, instead of including the less represented gender in each profession. Somehow the idea was that men are privileged in the system and women oppressed, while the truth is that both men and women are oppressed.

    Divide and conquer was a small step away from that point.

  • positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.

    I’m sure it varies from country to country, but in the US women could not study medicine until the late 1800’s and the US Army did not allow female physicians until 1940.

    It’s not unlikely to think we have many people today who were alive before women practicing as physicians was common place.

    I’m convinced it’s less of a matter of a group “dominating” a space but rather being pigeonholed/forced into it due to a lack of options, and these circumstances have impact that are still felt to this day.

    I’m not sure about Italy but in a lot of the US becoming a school teacher requires a college degree and has wages that do not keep up with the cost of living.

    You can look up articles of teachers losing their jobs for doing sex work or provocative modeling to earn extra income because their job does not pay enough.

    Doesn’t seem like that big of a win? Unless I’m missing something?

    I’m sure it varies from country to country, but in the US women could not study medicine until the late 1800’s

    In Germany at the moment around two thirds of medicine students are women and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the similar in most western countries.

  • It's quite simple, gender equality should stand for equal opportunity for both genders, but it's not. I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority. And worst of all, equal opportunity should not mean we will hire a less competent woman that a more competent men, to fill out some 50/50 quota.

    This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.

    And it started from that valid criticism and then takes the viewer on a tour by various faces and influencers to pull them into more and more into right-wing territory to radicalize them. Once in that box, they're not getting out again. It's a right-wing conveyor belt.

  • positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.

    I’m sure it varies from country to country, but in the US women could not study medicine until the late 1800’s and the US Army did not allow female physicians until 1940.

    It’s not unlikely to think we have many people today who were alive before women practicing as physicians was common place.

    I’m convinced it’s less of a matter of a group “dominating” a space but rather being pigeonholed/forced into it due to a lack of options, and these circumstances have impact that are still felt to this day.

    I’m not sure about Italy but in a lot of the US becoming a school teacher requires a college degree and has wages that do not keep up with the cost of living.

    You can look up articles of teachers losing their jobs for doing sex work or provocative modeling to earn extra income because their job does not pay enough.

    Doesn’t seem like that big of a win? Unless I’m missing something?

    Like another comment stated about Germany, even in Italy medicine faculties have a majority of women today as well.

    I agree that in general teacher jobs are not glamorous or high-paying, but it's still a very important role in society and we can still discuss how it's a problem that there is an effective (social, mostly) barrier for males accessing (lower level) education jobs.

    I do believe that this is essentially another symptom of a wider problem related to gender roles.

  • According to the Movember Foundation, a leading men’s health organization and partner of UN Women, two-thirds of young men regularly engage with masculinity influencers online.

    While some content offers genuine support, much of it promotes extreme language and sexist ideology, reinforcing the idea that men are victims of feminism and modern social change.

    So, 2/3 of young men are risking to become incels, right? Because it is hard to imagine a young girl who is looking for a partner with hyperfocus on his own masculinity as well as a partner, who portraits himself as victim? That is sad...

    That statistics is bullshit that would be 66% of all young men

  • A growing network of online communities known collectively as the “manosphere” is emerging as a serious threat to gender equality, as toxic digital spaces increasingly influence real-world attitudes, behaviours, and policies, the UN agency dedicated to ending gender discrimination has warned.

    Am I tripping, out of touch with reality? These people really don't seem to understand the problem and that makes me seriously question their methodology.

  • Like another comment stated about Germany, even in Italy medicine faculties have a majority of women today as well.

    I agree that in general teacher jobs are not glamorous or high-paying, but it's still a very important role in society and we can still discuss how it's a problem that there is an effective (social, mostly) barrier for males accessing (lower level) education jobs.

    I do believe that this is essentially another symptom of a wider problem related to gender roles.

    I do believe that this is essentially another symptom of a wider problem related to gender roles.

    Certainly agree with you there and I really appreciate your nuanced take.

    I think many miss the greater overarching message that forcing gender roles only serves to hold us back as a human race.

  • I feel like a Cassandra since I was warning about this for years now.

    The gender equality narrative got too focused on excluding men specifically, instead of including the less represented gender in each profession. Somehow the idea was that men are privileged in the system and women oppressed, while the truth is that both men and women are oppressed.

    Divide and conquer was a small step away from that point.

    I think there is nuance here. My understanding is that there is a very small but loud percentage of women that want to exclude men. When DEI (inclusion of less represented individuals) is encouraged, it's often cut down by "only the most qualified should be hired", detracting from the core topic which is bias. Most of the discourse around privilege was to help understand that men aren't actively oppressive, but many are blind to the ways in which they contribute to the oppressive issues due to cultural programming. In parallel to what we're seeing with protests - inaction is not helpful. Those that are privileged are more likely to be able to change the minds of those that are actively oppressive.
    TL;DR privilege is just the ability to apply peer pressure.

  • Am I tripping, out of touch with reality? These people really don't seem to understand the problem and that makes me seriously question their methodology.

    Am I tripping, out of touch with reality? These people really don't seem to understand the problem

    How so? Can you explain what do you mean here exactly?

  • It's quite simple, gender equality should stand for equal opportunity for both genders, but it's not. I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority. And worst of all, equal opportunity should not mean we will hire a less competent woman that a more competent men, to fill out some 50/50 quota.

    This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.

    It blows my mind how comments that don't fit the narrative of the liberals get down voted to doom and canceled, by the same groups that want "equality", but only if it's their definition of equality.

    I'm all for equality, which is why I can't stand left-wingers or right-wingers. They're all full of shit.

  • I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority

    Genuinely curious, got any examples of “traditional female majority places” that masculine individuals cannot enter/participate in?

    Daycare, men who work with children in general. It feels like taboo, and I assume it's because the general opinion seems to be that men that want to be around children are most likely pedophiles. I never heard of a program to include more men in daycare.

  • Not OP, but positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.
    It's not like males cannot reach those positions, but there are social obstacles to that.
    To make an example from my country, in Italy primary school teachers are > 90% female. I believe in kindergarten they reach 97 or 98%.
    This is also partially the result of strict gender roles than discriminate both men and women in terms of caring for children (I.e., women are de facto forced to do that, men are pushed away), which then reinforces the social practice of women doing all the caring jobs.

    This is IMHO a problem for both men and women, but probably it's not from the same perspective as what OP meant...

    The difference is that, typically, the lack of women in male-dominated fields is due to them being actively pushed away from things they want to do, while the lack of men in female-dominated fields is due to those fields being less prestigious/well-paid (often due to being traditionally female) and them not wanting to pick them in the first place. But when they do decide to enter those fields, nobody's actively trying to stop/discourage them.

    Superficially there may seem to be similarities in circumstance, but the amount of agency men and women have to enter opposite-gender-dominated careers is vastly different.

  • It blows my mind how comments that don't fit the narrative of the liberals get down voted to doom and canceled, by the same groups that want "equality", but only if it's their definition of equality.

    I'm all for equality, which is why I can't stand left-wingers or right-wingers. They're all full of shit.

    Personally, I don't mind seeing when comments are heavily down voted. If an opinion is unpopular, that's ok, especially in some areas where you generally know there's a likely bias in the audience.

    What annoys me is seeing comments removed / silenced by mods when the comments dont align. If the comments calling for explicit violence or using overt slurs, by all means censor. But many online spaces will eliminate even respectful / neutral comments simply because they aren't in line with that narrative.

  • 759 Stimmen
    72 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    U
    Frontier took the money and said, "Watch us trounce the big boy monopoly here"
  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    92 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • Hacker Tactic: ESD Diodes

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    24 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 295 Stimmen
    70 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    C
    It’s a bit misleading for engineering. Every Engineer starts at L4. That’s the junior position. L5 is the mid-senior level. Most SDEs in Amazon are L5 and that’s considered a terminal position. For management this is the “junior” (for lack of a better term) tier L6 is Senior but it’s closer to staff engineers at other companies. You tend to do more cross team work. This is also where a glut of managers are at L7 is Principal engineer and senior manager. Only about 2% of engineers get here. Managers at this lever oversee multiple teams. L8+ is fancy external hires and directors. The problem is that Amazon expects a lot of people to churn out before you hit the L6/7 levels. They dangle a carrot of super high pay for those tiers but don’t actually expect to pay it long term. There’s quite a few that have stayed longer than expected. And it’s hard to get out because they know how to game the system to demonstrate “impact”. Now that isn’t to say there aren’t a lot of good managers and engineers at this tier either. There are really good people at this tier. It’s just Amazon doesn’t want that many at this tier for long. Also if the idea of having an expected churn and dangling pay that no one can hit sounds dystopian and awful it is. Amazon sucks.
  • Strategies to Enhance the Efficiency of Livestock Conveyor Systems

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 116 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    darkdarkhouse@lemmy.sdf.orgD
    The terror will continue until you join us, then we will be nice, I promise!
  • 21 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    W
    that's because phone makers were pumping out garbage chargers with bare minimum performance for every single phone, isn't it?
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    J
    I deleted the snapchat now.