Skip to content

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

Technology
351 111 1.7k
  • I think its got merit. Do you recall Steve Bannon when he was just starting out and I quote : "In describing gamers, Bannon said, These guys, these rootless white males, had monster power. ... It was the pre-reddit. It's the same guys on (one of a trio of online message boards owned by IGE) Thottbot who were [later] on reddit" and other online message boards where the alt-right flourished, Bannon said"

    this was him talking about World of Warcraft....

    I mean yes race does intersect, it’s a longer discussion, I guess I’m just tired of this “whiteness” critique because it feels cheap and easy, hence intellectually lazy. Anything that happens in the west politically can be linked back to whiteness one way or another. I don’t think it’s been particularly helpful as a critique, in fact I think it has backfired and probably needs to go.

  • I'm sick and tired of hitting a wall. I can't live with a hostile family constantly sabotaging my efforts. I'm supposed to at least have some respite at home, people aren't supposed to laugh at you when you try to improve yourself. I have no other recourse, I will just finally blow my fucking head off next pay. Then maybe they will finally ask if they did something wrong.

    Listen to me: try putting maximum effort into improving yourself.

    "I will just finally blow my head off next pay. Then maybe they will finally ask if they did something wrong."

    What makes you think that people who have not acknowledged your efforts until now will suddenly gain enough self-awareness to realize that they are the problem after you take your own life?

    Join an offline community, engage in fieldwork, sports, or anything where you don’t have to be the best—just be there. Just know that I am rooting for you.

  • A commercial incentive?

    If you want to commercialize solving the ills of society, you end up with death camps as being simply the end result of efficiency.

    If you want to solve the problems of various demographics rather then viewing them as gender-specific instances in order to benefit the whole of society you get, among other benefits, a lot less genocide.

    Incentives don't always have to be of commercial value; they can also be moral and assumed.

    You don't usually receive commercial value for rescuing an animal, helping a child, or sheltering a woman. What I am saying is, why can't we offer the same moral incentive to men? They are often portrayed as oppressors, and more value can be extracted from the "oppressor bogeyman" than from actually addressing and solving the problems.

    What you are describing is not solving the problem; it is, at best, putting the problem under the rug, or at worst, getting rid of the problem altogether.

  • I mean yes race does intersect, it’s a longer discussion, I guess I’m just tired of this “whiteness” critique because it feels cheap and easy, hence intellectually lazy. Anything that happens in the west politically can be linked back to whiteness one way or another. I don’t think it’s been particularly helpful as a critique, in fact I think it has backfired and probably needs to go.

    I think backfiring would be the wrong phrasing, Caucasian people after all statistically get the best outcome in pretty much every demographic of life IIRC.

    For instance i remember as a youngster feeling like life was tough in the USA--until i visited Africa. I don't think its right though to for instance blame current people from England for the occupation of say, India, but I also don't think right for them to claim their country hasn't somehow benefited from it and through that, they themselves.

    I am optimistic about the future though. I am biracial and I feel as mobility/travel/the acceptance of others has grown eventually we will all be one--and yes I realize how sappy that is.

  • Can I ask a question ? Why do you assume that feminists were ever pro-left ??
    Seriously

    That has nothing to do with my remark. The far-right is anti-feminist.

    As to you question, there are many different strands of feminism and Marxist feminism, anarcha-feminism, intersectional feminism, queer feminism etc. are very much pro-left.

  • True, if we are talking as if today was 1950 and the socioeconomic situation were the same. But it's not. There's almost 80 years of progress and the socioeconomic situation is not even comparable. So, although true it was a problem 80 years ago, its a bit shortsigthed to claim same applies today.

    The 1950s was when women were relegated to the role of housewife. You are asking why women don't want to be relegated to that role.

  • You don’t fix this by lecturing young men. You fix it by giving them a sense of purpose and identity that doesn’t rely on putting someone else down.

    Sounds like they need the shit slapped out of them.

    Maybe they should just take the advice that we've been giving to women and minorities for the last 100 years and tell them that if they want to succeed they should just fucking work harder at it.

    If a dam is leaking, smacking it and tell it to be more 'dam-like' will only break the dam eventually. For the people drowning, "the dam should have held, because that's what dams do"

    For people who want to improve our world, the goal needs to be defined as reducing gender conflict by increasing mutual gender respect. These words you've shared do not invite respect, but conflict. It is a phrase of someone who does not offer support, but demands submission.

    Now it's easy to reply "yes, I am demanding that men to stop killing women, and if that's "submission", so be it". It's of course a correct position.

    But it would not be what you said. And there are a thousand ways to twist that phrase to deepen the conflict, out of context, or even subverting that context. And the conflict then only depends.

    Resentment is a knife. It's a tool of division, not unity. We should not use it to divide people by gender.

  • To paraphrase Jon Lovett, they have "back of the classroom energy" while the left has "front of the classroom energy".

    "Teacher teacher, he said something some people might find offensive! Send him to the principal's office"

    "Thanks for narcing me out, r****d"

    "Teacher teacher, he just said the r-word!"

    The left just isn't equipped to deal with the manosphere. Everything the left does just makes the manosphere seem even more cool to the kids.

    "The UN is worried about these guys, they must be really badass!"

    Wat?

    The manosphere is literally a bunch of losers that can't get laid and are making excuses for it.

    Work out. Have a career. Don't be a asshole. Do that and you can get laid but that's too hard for some folks.

  • Wat?

    The manosphere is literally a bunch of losers that can't get laid and are making excuses for it.

    Work out. Have a career. Don't be a asshole. Do that and you can get laid but that's too hard for some folks.

    They're groomed from a young age by the manosphere to be losers that can't get laid, so they'll continuously buy self-help books from the manosphere.

    They still vote though. And this all happens because to a teenager, the manosphere are the cool guys making fun of the whiny nerds.

  • The 1950s was when women were relegated to the role of housewife. You are asking why women don't want to be relegated to that role.

    There was nothing wrong with that role then, and there is nothing wrong with the role now. The main difference is that in 1950 women had no choice but to be a housewife, and today women have choices, and when comparing them, being a housewife doesn't look half as bad.

  • I read the article and followed the thread. And yeah, online misogyny is a real problem. But here's what no one wants to talk about. We’ve failed young men. Full stop.

    About ten years ago, a friend of mine who’s gone now pointed me toward this thing called MGTOW. “Men Going Their Own Way.” I had just come out of a toxic divorce, so the idea of stepping back from dating and learning to enjoy life on my own terms seemed kind of healthy. At first glance, it looked like a decent idea. Just guys doing their own thing, not hassling anyone.

    But once I started digging, I realized something else was going on. Beneath the surface, it wasn’t about peace or self-sufficiency. It was this boiling cauldron of resentment and hatred, mostly aimed at women. What looked like a community of self-reliant men turned out to be a recruiting ground for bitterness and blame. I didn’t buy into it, because I wasn’t angry at the world. But I could see how someone who felt isolated and ignored might get sucked in.

    That’s what a lot of this comes down to. Loneliness. Disconnection. No sense of value or direction. And then someone online tells you it’s not your fault, it’s women’s fault, or society’s fault, or anyone but you. That stuff spreads fast because it gives people something to belong to.

    I’m not saying you excuse the hate. But we better understand where it’s coming from if we want to stop it. You don’t fix this by lecturing young men. You fix it by giving them a sense of purpose and identity that doesn’t rely on putting someone else down.

    And no, masculinity itself is not the enemy. We need better models of it. Mr. Rogers comes to mind. He was kind, decent, and strong in a quiet way. He didn’t need to bully or dominate anyone to be respected. That’s the kind of example we ought to be lifting up.

    I can see that parents failed young men and the education system failed young men. But these men aren’t entitled to a woman or a high paying job. And quite frankly they probably aren’t capable of those things or they would be solving their own problems instead of blaming women for them

  • That has nothing to do with my remark. The far-right is anti-feminist.

    As to you question, there are many different strands of feminism and Marxist feminism, anarcha-feminism, intersectional feminism, queer feminism etc. are very much pro-left.

    Sure Finland's female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br>
    https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994

    So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war, TERFs are a thing too & guess what ? The feminists do not oppose the draft. (Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)

  • Sure Finland's female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br>
    https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994

    So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war, TERFs are a thing too & guess what ? The feminists do not oppose the draft. (Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)

    "2Sure Finland's female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br> https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994"

    If you see feminism as every time there are women in government, why do you oppose feminism?

    "So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war"

    They're a right-wing austerity government but I'll bite, which war are you talking about?

    "TERFs are a thing too"

    Sure, I never said all feminists are left-wing. There are reactionary strands of feminism (if we accept that they are indeed feminists) such TERFs for example. My point is that feminism is not a monolith and the bulk of it is left-wing.

    "The feminists do not oppose the draft."

    Correction: A country right next to an expansionist dictatorship does not oppose the draft. I'll probably get shouted at buy when you are right next to a country like Russia, the draft is a necessary evil.

    "(Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)"

    Perhaps the draft should be extended to women. In any case, irrelevant to your "point" about feminism.

  • There was nothing wrong with that role then, and there is nothing wrong with the role now. The main difference is that in 1950 women had no choice but to be a housewife, and today women have choices, and when comparing them, being a housewife doesn't look half as bad.

    The lack of income independent from your spouse is a huge argument against being a housewife.

  • I'm literally fucking gaslight by being told I don't have ADHD, told my stomach issues are just because I eat fast, planning is stupid and other incredibly dumb shit. I have to listen to an anti-waxxer father talk shit for over an hour. I had to watch friends sprout sigma shit, called a woman I brought into the server "the huzz", and called me a fucking pussy. Actually, I don't have to deal with your bullshit either.

    I'm literally fucking gaslight by being told I don't have ADHD, told my stomach issues are just because I eat fast, planning is stupid and other incredibly dumb shit. I have to listen to an anti-waxxer father talk shit for over an hour.

    What does that have to do with your gender? These are problems we all go through because our healthcare system is failing because they put profits before people.

    I had to watch friends sprout sigma shit, called a woman I brought into the server "the huzz", and called me a fucking pussy. Actually, I don't have to deal with your bullshit either.

    Sounds like you have shitty sexist friends... Again I fail to see how that has anything to do with misandry. That's toxic masculinity, not misandry. You aren't being targeted because you are male, you are being targeted because your shithole friends don't see you as male enough.

  • I can see that parents failed young men and the education system failed young men. But these men aren’t entitled to a woman or a high paying job. And quite frankly they probably aren’t capable of those things or they would be solving their own problems instead of blaming women for them

    Manosphere men fall pray to the XY problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem?wprov=sfla1.

    They demand the X which is a girlfriend and money in order to solve problem Y which is a lack of social connectedness and decreasing standards of living.

    They believe themselves entitled to X because of that. Actually, everyone (including Manosphere men) is entitled to a solution to Y which affects everyone appart from the bourgois (who still lack social connectedness) but the solution to that is Z which is a wholesale restructuring of our society and economy to one that is maximally democratic and socialist.

  • You don’t fix this by lecturing young men. You fix it by giving them a sense of purpose and identity that doesn’t rely on putting someone else down.

    Sounds like they need the shit slapped out of them.

    Maybe they should just take the advice that we've been giving to women and minorities for the last 100 years and tell them that if they want to succeed they should just fucking work harder at it.

    Succeed at capitalism? That's a fool's errand. Better to point them to the real enemy which is the bourgeoisie and the real solution which is for the working class to form democratic organizations aimed at overthrowing the ruling class and form worker led democratic ways of organizing society.

  • They're groomed from a young age by the manosphere to be losers that can't get laid, so they'll continuously buy self-help books from the manosphere.

    They still vote though. And this all happens because to a teenager, the manosphere are the cool guys making fun of the whiny nerds.

    There no way Andrew Tate is cool at a party.

  • There are absolutely jobs where hiring the most qualified person for the job is critical. There are a lot of jobs where the threshold for good enough is far below that, and most companies are at least as concerned at getting the cheapest labor that can fulfill the position as they are at getting the best person (at that lower rate). Adding additional constraints like diversity isn't going to affect those jobs any more than the company's desire to save a buck.

    Hiring someone over someone else purely because of their race or sex is discrimination, racism, and/or sexism.

    It sounds to me like you’re talking about jobs that illegal immigrants do, especially once you brought up cheap labor. Jobs like those don’t have diversity quotas, because they almost entirely hire from the “diversity” pool.

  • There no way Andrew Tate is cool at a party.

    Someone watches his shit.

  • How to Setup a Secure Ubuntu Home Server

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    46 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • OpenAI’s Sam Altman warns of AI voice fraud crisis in banking

    Technology technology
    54
    1
    236 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    178 Aufrufe
    V
    I am rich so write what I said.
  • 184 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    279 Aufrufe
    C
    Some of the stories do also include solutions to those same issues, though that also tends to lead to limiting the capabilities of the robots. The message could be interpreted as it being a trade off between versatility and risk.
  • 44 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    37 Aufrufe
    I
    Next up: Dos Exploit found in all electric devices in the world! A hacker with physical access can cut the wires.
  • TikTok Is Reportedly Making a U.S. Version of the App

    Technology technology
    7
    1
    28 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    58 Aufrufe
    abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zoneA
    So basically doing what Western Tech companies do in China? Just sounds like a way to isolate American users and control what they see and hear...a bit like what they do in China...huh.
  • We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

    Technology technology
    331
    1
    1k Stimmen
    331 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    dsilverz@friendica.worldD
    @technocrit While I agree with the main point that "AI/LLMs has/have no agency", I must be the boring, ackchyually person who points out and remembers some nerdy things.tl;dr: indeed, AIs and LLMs aren't intelligent... we aren't so intelligent as we think we are, either, because we hold no "exclusivity" of intelligence among biosphere (corvids, dolphins, etc) and because there's no such thing as non-deterministic "intelligence". We're just biologically compelled to think that we can think and we're the only ones to think, and this is just anthropocentric and naive from us (yeah, me included).If you have the patience to read a long and quite verbose text, it's below. If you don't, well, no problems, just stick to my tl;dr above.-----First and foremost, everything is ruled by physics. Deep down, everything is just energy and matter (the former of which, to quote the famous Einstein equation e = mc, is energy as well), and this inexorably includes living beings.Bodies, flesh, brains, nerves and other biological parts, they're not so different from a computer case, CPUs/NPUs/TPUs, cables and other computer parts: to quote Sagan, it's all "made of star stuff", it's all a bunch of quarks and other elementary particles clumped together and forming subatomic particles forming atoms forming molecules forming everything we know, including our very selves...Everything is compelled to follow the same laws of physics, everything is subjected to the same cosmic principles, everything is subjected to the same fundamental forces, everything is subjected to the same entropy, everything decays and ends (and this comment is just a reminder, a cosmic-wide Memento mori).It's bleak, but this is the cosmic reality: cosmos is simply indifferent to all existence, and we're essentially no different than our fancy "tools", be it the wheel, the hammer, the steam engine, the Voyager twins or the modern dystopian electronic devices crafted to follow pieces of logical instructions, some of which were labelled by developers as "Markov Chains" and "Artificial Neural Networks".Then, there's also the human non-exclusivity among the biosphere: corvids (especially Corvus moneduloides, the New Caleidonian crow) are scientifically known for their intelligence, so are dolphins, chimpanzees and many other eukaryotas. Humans love to think we're exclusive in that regard, but we're not, we're just fooling ourselves!IMHO, every time we try to argue "there's no intelligence beyond humans", it's highly anthropocentric and quite biased/bigoted against the countless other species that currently exist on Earth (and possibly beyond this Pale Blue Dot as well). We humans often forgot how we are species ourselves (taxonomically classified as "Homo sapiens"). We tend to carry on our biological existences as if we were some kind of "deities" or "extraterrestrials" among a "primitive, wild life".Furthermore, I can point out the myriad of philosophical points, such as the philosophical point raised by the mere mention of "senses" ("Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, ..." "my senses deceive me" is the starting point for Cartesian (René Descartes) doubt. While Descarte's conclusion, "Cogito ergo sum", is highly anthropocentric, it's often ignored or forgotten by those who hold anthropocentric views on intelligence, as people often ground the seemingly "exclusive" nature of human intelligence on the ability to "feel".Many other philosophical musings deserve to be mentioned as well: lack of free will (stemming from the very fact that we were unable to choose our own births), the nature of "evil" (both the Hobbesian line regarding "human evilness" and the Epicurean paradox regarding "metaphysical evilness"), the social compliance (I must point out to documentaries from Derren Brown on this subject), the inevitability of Death, among other deep topics.All deep principles and ideas converging, IMHO, into the same bleak reality, one where we (supposedly "soul-bearing beings") are no different from a "souless" machine, because we're both part of an emergent phenomena (Ordo ab chao, the (apparent) order out of chaos) that has been taking place for Æons (billions of years and beyond, since the dawn of time itself).Yeah, I know how unpopular this worldview can be and how downvoted this comment will probably get. Still I don't care: someone who gazed into the abyss must remember how the abyss always gazes us, even those of us who didn't dare to gaze into the abyss yet.I'm someone compelled by my very neurodivergent nature to remember how we humans are just another fleeting arrangement of interconnected subsystems known as "biological organism", one of which "managed" to throw stuff beyond the atmosphere (spacecrafts) while still unable to understand ourselves. We're biologically programmed, just like the other living beings, to "fear Death", even though our very cells are programmed to terminate on a regular basis (apoptosis) and we're are subjected to the inexorable chronological falling towards "cosmic chaos" (entropy, as defined, "as time passes, the degree of disorder increases irreversibly").
  • Microsoft’s new genAI model to power agents in Windows 11

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    30 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    66 Aufrufe
    ulrich@feddit.orgU
    which one would sell more I mean they would charge a lot of money for the stripped down one because it doesn't allow them to monetize it on the back end, and the vast majority would continue using the resource-slurping ad-riddled one.
  • 580 Stimmen
    278 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    V
    The main difference being the consequences that might result from the surveillance.