Skip to content

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

Technology
324 110 0
  • 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.

  • 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.

    That's kind of the thing, we want to think they're a bunch of sexless losers, but the basic tenets of advice you get from the manosphere will probably get you laid if you follow it. Following manosphere advice works because it's the exact same advice you just laid out but packaged in a more attractive and focused manner. It just happens to be with a side of right wing politics and more than a bit of misogyny.

  • in my experience it was the kids in the front whining "Why come they have a black student union and we dont have a white one waaaaah! i am now a victim! DEI! why is that white girl dating a minority waaaaah!"

    the victim complex is strong with them, like the dark side of the force it seduces them.

    There are tons of young black men in the manosphere, too. Or else with whom manosphere ideas resonate. Don't be racist.

  • 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.

    You are making an excellent point right up until your last paragraph. What 15 year old boy wants to be Mr Fucking Rogers? Sure, maybe they want to be him in like 40 years (but only the version of him who was secretly a marine sniper covered in tattoos everywhere his sweaters hid). What does a 15 year old boy who is vulnerable to the manosphere want? He wants to get paid and get laid.

    Trying to shove a 15 year old's raging hormones and desire for rebellion and independence into a Mr Rogers box will only lead to... more rebellion. Give the kids role models who are good people, who also succeed at things they care about.

  • 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.

    Was with you until that last bit. I'm not opposed to democratic reforms or testing socialist ideas piecemeal. But massive restructurings of society towards utopia have.... a history....

    [Hint: lots of people die]

  • 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 haven't heard men say shit this stupid my whole life. This isn't 'tradition' it's a growing hate movement.

  • 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.

    Yes. Correct. But talk to a boy in Jr. High. They aren't as smart about this as you might hope.

  • Honestly, as a women, so it's not my opinion that matters, but even that meme/joke/trend that "men are simple creatures", "keep your belly fully and balls empty and we're happy" ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?

    The men in my life are just as complicated and multifaceted as anyone else. These kinds of jokes, or online rhetoric, to me, feel like y'all are calling men simple and dumb.

    The men in my life are not simple or dumb.

    “men are simple creatures”, “keep your belly fully and balls empty and we’re happy” ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?

    Personally, not inherently, no. And definitely not in context, context here being the existence of "men are primitive" and "men only want one thing and it's disgusting". Is it reductive, yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

    Catch some fish, chop some wood, smoke the critters, unclog the sink so that stubbles will actually flush instead of cling to the rim, annoying the wife (for incomprehensible reasons, but a well-functioning drain is its own reward), be a rollercoaster for the kids, kick back on the sofa, get your balls emptied, if that's not a satisfying day then you have issues.

    Complexity is not a good in itself. Be only as complex as is necessary to stay simple.

  • 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.

    Succeed at capitalism? That’s a fool’s errand

    I did it. Lots of people I know did it. The main trick is cutting toxic people out of your life, moving to a better place, and making new friends who are also dedicated to succeeding.

  • “men are simple creatures”, “keep your belly fully and balls empty and we’re happy” ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?

    Personally, not inherently, no. And definitely not in context, context here being the existence of "men are primitive" and "men only want one thing and it's disgusting". Is it reductive, yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

    Catch some fish, chop some wood, smoke the critters, unclog the sink so that stubbles will actually flush instead of cling to the rim, annoying the wife (for incomprehensible reasons, but a well-functioning drain is its own reward), be a rollercoaster for the kids, kick back on the sofa, get your balls emptied, if that's not a satisfying day then you have issues.

    Complexity is not a good in itself. Be only as complex as is necessary to stay simple.

    But as you describe, is that every man?

    Certainly not.

    I'm mom and I'm the rollercoaster, the house repair gal, and I have a higher drive than my husband, though I would never describe our booty time as, "getting my balls emptied" or some female equivalent. It's more like, activity time with my best friend, alas,

    You just sterotyped an entire cohort of people in your description, I hope you understand that.

    I refuse to sterotype my fellow women. I know women, we are all different, and I myself, don't hit many of the sterotypical markers.

    You describe your version of the every man's day here, then say any man who lives differently has issues, because that day isn't satisfying for them. Is that kind towards your fellow men you think?

  • Was with you until that last bit. I'm not opposed to democratic reforms or testing socialist ideas piecemeal. But massive restructurings of society towards utopia have.... a history....

    [Hint: lots of people die]

    Lots of people die in the United States as it is. Homelessness is rising drastically. How long until you're next to be put out onto the street? Your employer can't wait until they can automate your job and fire you.

    Also, the United States has a long history of carrying out genocide even prior to Gaza. Odd given your fallacious implication that capitalism is peaceful

  • Someone watches his shit.

    Just because the youtube algorithm promotes outrage doesn't make it right.

  • But as you describe, is that every man?

    Certainly not.

    I'm mom and I'm the rollercoaster, the house repair gal, and I have a higher drive than my husband, though I would never describe our booty time as, "getting my balls emptied" or some female equivalent. It's more like, activity time with my best friend, alas,

    You just sterotyped an entire cohort of people in your description, I hope you understand that.

    I refuse to sterotype my fellow women. I know women, we are all different, and I myself, don't hit many of the sterotypical markers.

    You describe your version of the every man's day here, then say any man who lives differently has issues, because that day isn't satisfying for them. Is that kind towards your fellow men you think?

    You are completely overthinking it. I readily acknowledged it is reductive. And my example was an example, a vibe. I do not, in fact, fish. Nor consider desert dwellers to be less masculine or something.

    A typical male experience in a hetero relationship is that women are overly fussy over many things, I think most of it is culture (a generalised fear of a catty mother in law not considering you good enough for her son causing a fear of losing your partner because he might listen to her instead of you) so when we hear "men are simple" we don't hear "men are stupid" but "finally, someone who understands the pointlessness of having seasonal napkins". If you wanted to say "men are stupid" you'd have said "men are primitive", it's not hard to tell apart. We do, in fact, have social and contextual awareness, I freely admit that we use obliviousness as a conscious strategy.

    Are there men who are totally into decorative towels? Sure, but if we hedge everything with "but not everyone does that", "of course, all people are unique and different" then communication becomes a chore. It's like hearing "sunscreen is important" and insisting "of course, if it's winter that's a different issue, we wouldn't want to essentialise weather to be carcinogenic". Come on.

    And our interaction here, ironically, falls into a similar pattern. "No, really, it's fine that we don't have decorative towels" -- "There must be a deeper meaning behind this, a social force, someone pulling his strings, why would anyone not want to have complex things like decorative towels, what is the meaning of this, am I on top of the situation"... no. He meant what he said, exactly that, and nothing more: My hands are dry, the towels didn't make them dirty again, that's all I need from a towel. I want my pants to have pockets so I buy them with pockets instead of worrying whether they ruin the silhouette and agonising over compromises. There's a lot of freedom in simplicity. That inner mother in law, though? Of course everything is complicated, how else would she be able to drive you crazy.

    I've got a song for you.

  • Well, after your 2nd post with the same thing I thought this is how you wanna communicate.

    Let's try this again: If, as you say "women do empathy, men do resilience", then why should childcare be 70:30? Why not 50:50 so the kids get taught empathy and resilience in equal measure? Also, how can you even be empathetic if you lack in the resilience department.

  • 462 Stimmen
    112 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    B
    [My] translation: "I want to rewrite history to what I want".
  • 165 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    H
    In the meantime: Parents: don’t give your children lighted rectangles to play with.
  • 1k Stimmen
    78 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    K
    I just hear that they move to LibreOffice but not to Linux, ateast not right now.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    A
    If you're a developer, a startup founder, or part of a small team, you've poured countless hours into building your web application. You've perfected the UI, optimized the database, and shipped features your users love. But in the rush to build and deploy, a critical question often gets deferred: is your application secure? For many, the answer is a nervous "I hope so." The reality is that without a proper defense, your application is exposed to a barrage of automated attacks hitting the web every second. Threats like SQL Injection, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), and Remote Code Execution are not just reserved for large enterprises; they are constant dangers for any application with a public IP address. The Security Barrier: When Cost and Complexity Get in the Way The standard recommendation is to place a Web Application Firewall (WAF) in front of your application. A WAF acts as a protective shield, inspecting incoming traffic and filtering out malicious requests before they can do any damage. It’s a foundational piece of modern web security. So, why doesn't everyone have one? Historically, robust WAFs have been complex and expensive. They required significant budgets, specialized knowledge to configure, and ongoing maintenance, putting them out of reach for students, solo developers, non-profits, and early-stage startups. This has created a dangerous security divide, leaving the most innovative and resource-constrained projects the most vulnerable. But that is changing. Democratizing Security: The Power of a Community WAF Security should be a right, not a privilege. Recognizing this, the landscape is shifting towards more accessible, community-driven tools. The goal is to provide powerful, enterprise-grade protection to everyone, for free. This is the principle behind the HaltDos Community WAF. It's a no-cost, perpetually free Web Application Firewall designed specifically for the community that has been underserved for too long. It’s not a stripped-down trial version; it’s a powerful security tool designed to give you immediate and effective protection against the OWASP Top 10 and other critical web threats. What Can You Actually Do with It? With a community WAF, you can deploy a security layer in minutes that: Blocks Malicious Payloads: Get instant, out-of-the-box protection against common attack patterns like SQLi, XSS, RCE, and more. Stops Bad Bots: Prevent malicious bots from scraping your content, attempting credential stuffing, or spamming your forms. Gives You Visibility: A real-time dashboard shows you exactly who is trying to attack your application and what methods they are using, providing invaluable security intelligence. Allows Customization: You can add your own custom security rules to tailor the protection specifically to your application's logic and technology stack. The best part? It can be deployed virtually anywhere—on-premises, in a private cloud, or with any major cloud provider like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud. Get Started in Minutes You don't need to be a security guru to use it. The setup is straightforward, and the value is immediate. Protecting the project, you've worked so hard on is no longer a question of budget. Download: Get the free Community WAF from the HaltDos site. Deploy: Follow the simple instructions to set it up with your web server (it’s compatible with Nginx, Apache, and others). Secure: Watch the dashboard as it begins to inspect your traffic and block threats in real-time. Security is a journey, but it must start somewhere. For developers, startups, and anyone running a web application on a tight budget, a community WAF is the perfect first step. It's powerful, it's easy, and it's completely free.
  • 41 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    paraphrand@lemmy.worldP
    Network Effects.
  • 361 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    F
    If only they didn’t fake it to get their desired result, then maybe it could have been useful. I agree that LiDAR and other technologies should be used in conjunction with regular cameras. I don’t know why anyone would be against that unless they have vested interests. For various reasons though I understand that it isn’t always possible - price being a big one.
  • How I use Mastodon in 2025 - fredrocha.net

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    0 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    J
    Sure. Efficiency isn't everything, though. At the end of the article there are a few people to get you started. Then you can go to your favorites in that list, and follow some of the people THEY are following. Rinse and repeat, follow boosted folks. You'll have 100 souls in no time.