Skip to content

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

Technology
299 101 0
  • So if a company traditionally had 10 men employees and now has committed to having gender equality, you see this as 5 jobs where men are no longer considered, rather than it historically being 10 jobs where women weren't considered?

    rather than it historically being 10 jobs where women weren’t considered

    But that's not true.

    Hire the best person for the job. Period. If the best 10 people for the job - ie the most qualified, the most experience, interviewed the best, the best culture fit, etc - are all men then that should be fine. Hiring less qualified, worse people simply because they're women or a minority is ridiculous, and it means that more deserving people are missing out.

  • Honestly I think examples like this are counterproductive, the average man will never be considered for one of these positions, nor will the average woman. It is useless to get angry at such a situation as it only serves to engage people in the "gender war" which only serves to distract you from the real issues which are almost completely class issues. Instead of getting angry that some woman "took away" the job of some man who was "more deserving", you should get angry that that person is most likely getting paid a hundred times more than you and will cut your job in an attempt to make the company appear more profitable.

    It's not only executive/board level jobs that have "diversity quotas" now.

  • rather than it historically being 10 jobs where women weren’t considered

    But that's not true.

    Hire the best person for the job. Period. If the best 10 people for the job - ie the most qualified, the most experience, interviewed the best, the best culture fit, etc - are all men then that should be fine. Hiring less qualified, worse people simply because they're women or a minority is ridiculous, and it means that more deserving people are missing out.

    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.

  • Though I’d hardly acknowledge nearly anyone in this thread as a man. Weak shit.

    Speaking of toxic masculinity....

    "toxic masculinity is when men judge men harshly for being sexist". Totally got me there.

  • 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 wording you did there is perfect, that's the exact kind of precise wording people need to be hearing, not this other relational wording junk.

  • "toxic masculinity is when men judge men harshly for being sexist". Totally got me there.

    Sure. Real men don't cry. Real men aren't weak. Real men toughen up and don't complain. Real men don't care about injustice if it's them who are affected. That's you.

    Nothing to do with people in this thread being sexist: That's your addition to justify your toxicity to yourself. Even if that is the case, that this threat is full of sexist assholes: You're still taking a toxic approach to facing it.

  • I had to do community service in Tennessee, i chose to help feed the homeless at a soup kitchen, anyone could eat there, but there were only permanent beds for women. It was nice they fed the men too but thinking back, where did they go at night?

    This was not the case in North Carolina

  • This was not the case in North Carolina

    Im glad to hear it! We have enough empty buildings and houses that there shouldnt be any homeless.

  • Is there even an incentive for solving men's problems?

    What are men's problems? What problem do we suffer that also doesn't affect women?

    Feminism can use men to portray the ultimate evil; influencers can use that portrayal to criticize men, engage in rage bait, get attention and secure brand deals.

    Isn't that what you are doing to feminist right now? Isn't that what the article is talking about with the man-o-sphere?

    Capitalism can appease women to promote consumerism wrapped in feminism. Corporations can capitalize on men's loneliness and low self-worth.

    Lol, like we men are immune from corporations promoting masculinity? Old spice, axe body spray, every sports based commercial..... What gender do you think the majority of the CEO for these companies are?

    have noticed that men with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations, the money they will earn will be expanded on consumerisms/additions which again can be profited by capitalism and corporate.

    Capitalism isn't a fucking gender problem.....it is the thing making everyone's lives miserable. If we wanted to examine gender in capitalism we can take a look at which of the genders gains more from the system. What percent of the oligarchs are men, how many billionaires are men, how many senators and judges that keep the system going..... it's mostly dudes.

    The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (men) taking matters in their own hands and rescuing each other I don't think there is enough incentive to help men as community or whole

    And the rich switch genders or something? Women can't be part of the struggle against capitalism? What is wrong with you guys, do you not have mothers, sisters, women in your lives who are just friends?

    I can't be the only one here who thinks this is insane, right?

    Young white men are being squeezed out of the ownership class for the first time and it's because it's the only demographic that hasn't already been squeezed at this late stage of capitalism. The problem isn't with women, it is the economic system that dangles a carrot for some, so they'll wield the stick against others....and we're all out of carrots. Welcome to the party, everyone else has been getting the stick the whole fucking time.

    Thank you for making sense!

  • And these are real words.

    Yup, in the UK women MPs were talking about bringing in curfews for MEN

  • Lol, by who?

    Who would even be able to enforce this..... The politicians who are mostly men, the CEO who own silicon valley....mostly men. The police who would enforce the law.....oh also men.

    You guys are just scared of your own shadows... Some real soft shit going on in this thread.

    Men huh, Finland is a feminist govt that has a male-only draft.
    Oh & EU is feminist led
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtXnRwT8K9A

    Feminists & women are pandered to by those men. Those men are kinda like you. Of course some like you is going to victim blame men.
    Another example is the white feather movement

  • Thank you for reading it.

    There are two factors here in the US that correlate significantly with a person's lifetime earnings potential: their zip code of birth and attainment of a college degree. It's exceedingly significant (in a positive way) that women constitute the majority in college enrollment. I think that's a good thing, but it also demonstrates inequality.

    I want to see policies here that mirror those in more progressive European countries: Free college, a federally-mandated living wage that adjusts with inflation, and universal health care. I also want to see universities' federal funding tied to expansion of enrollment rates, as there are many that keep them artificially low and yet still raise tuition rates every year. These benefits should target low-income communities without regard to race or gender.

    In short, I want to see the economic ship lifted for the poor, and that's how it should be done.

    Most young people, and in particular young men, have three choices when entering adulthood: Work for sub-standard wages and struggle alone and/or live with their parents, join the military, or take on permanent debt on the hope of a college degree and an elevated life. (If they're fortunate enough to land a spot in enrollment to begin with.)

    Rampant misogyny has spread because people who consider themselves progressive have ignored these economic calamities and right-wingers have, conversely, highlighted those inequalities, created communities for young men, and gotten rich in the process. Currently the functional unemployment rate in the United States is 25%.

    The solution, is creating an economy where prosperity is distributed among a more diverse population of people.

    (But I suspect people will continue to vote Democrat and Republican and this conversation won't matter much in the grand scheme of things.)

    Correlating education to wealth is fine overall but you are intentionally avoiding more direct metrics of wealth and inequality to make it seem as if this is direct causation for women having some upper hand.

    Women absolutely make less and hold a significantly smaller portion of the overall wealth in this country.

    Women routinely have to leave their careers to manage the home and their family (due to archaic misogynistic gender roles). There is also just straight up bias in management decisions about pay.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/

  • Ohio. Cincinnati, specifically. It's not 100 to 0 women resources to men, it's more like 55 to 5. There are some cold weather shelters for men, and places to eat, but mostly there are zero beds unless you're willing to sign up for a drug testing program, and even then there are costs and limited spaces. There are quite a few women's shelters in the area.

    I mean, there are reasons that women need to be away from men sometimes. And it's not because we're having a wonderful time in life. And this "manosphere" is only creating more dangerous situations for us.

  • Respectfully, your hostile and reactionary tone demonstrated quite well that you had no intention of discussing things in a rational manner. You toss around terms like 'redpill' like they're Halloween candy, and it demonstrates that even having the discussion is enough to set off your temper. I even gave you an example of the imbalance in economic opportunity favoring women and minorities, and you just ignored it.

    And that's fine.

    Be angry, but the least you could do is try to be productive.

    The problem is the systemic impoverishment of young men is the root cause of all this, and that is what needs to be fixed if you want to fix misogyny.

    Again failure to discuss the substance of the argument and just making it personal. It’s crystal clear what your objectives are here.

  • Is there even an incentive for solving men's problems? Feminism can use men to portray the ultimate evil; influencers can use that portrayal to criticize men, engage in rage bait, get attention and secure brand deals.

    Capitalism can appease women to promote consumerism wrapped in feminism. Corporations can capitalize on men's loneliness and low self-worth.

    I have noticed that men with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations, the money they will earn will be expanded on consumerisms/additions which again can be profited by capitalism and corporate.

    The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (men) taking matters in their own hands and rescuing each other I don't think there is enough incentive to help men as community or whole

    Is there even an incentive for solving men's problems?

    Uh, yes? Obviously. If there wasn't then "manosphere" content would never be monetized.

  • I can't believe how much shit you are getting while having perfectly valid and rational claims. The fact this fucking chode is claiming your being reactionary while he froths at the mouth with accusations nof misandry is making me feel insane.

    You are being too kind, but I will use the privilege reserved for middle aged man to fucking yell at emotional little boys throwing tantrums.

    Surrounded by incels, I guess. Mad they aren’t special anymore.

    “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” – Franklin Leonard

  • Men huh, Finland is a feminist govt that has a male-only draft.
    Oh & EU is feminist led
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtXnRwT8K9A

    Feminists & women are pandered to by those men. Those men are kinda like you. Of course some like you is going to victim blame men.
    Another example is the white feather movement

    Men huh, Finland is a feminist govt that has a male-only draft.

    Men still make up the majority of the parliament in Finland, though that particular country has a long history of promoting equity.

    Oh & EU is feminist led

    You mean that the EU has leaders who are feminist..... Men still hold the majority of the seats.

    Feminists & women are pandered to by those men. Those men are kinda like you.

    Oh no.... People who believe in equality....the tragedy.

    Of course some like you is going to victim blame men

    How exactly are you being victimized while I am not.... and we're both men?

    Another example is the white feather movement

    Lol, that was a nationalistic movement to get people to go to war. I don't really think women were really in control of the war effort during WW2.

  • Thank you for making sense!

    This fucking thread is crazy... especially these dudes trying to wrap their misogyny in faux leftist babbling.

    There is no struggle but class struggle. They're just pissed they missed the bus on being invited to the ownership class and now they're stuck down here with everyone else.

  • Sure. Real men don't cry. Real men aren't weak. Real men toughen up and don't complain. Real men don't care about injustice if it's them who are affected. That's you.

    Nothing to do with people in this thread being sexist: That's your addition to justify your toxicity to yourself. Even if that is the case, that this threat is full of sexist assholes: You're still taking a toxic approach to facing it.

    Sure. Real men don't cry. Real men aren't weak. Real men toughen up and don't complain. Real men don't care about injustice if it's them who are affected. That's you.

    Lol, falsely conflating me telling you not to blame POC and women for late stage capitalism with telling you not to cry is pretty hilarious.

    What injustice are you facing that generations of women and immigrants haven't been receiving the whole time?

    I'm not telling you not to communicate or build support networks, I'm saying don't blame minorities for the lack of those support networks.

  • You make some good points, but i cant resist the thought experiment:

    Is there even an incentive for solving women's problems? Patriarchy can use women to portray the ultimate evil; influencers can use that portrayal to criticize women, engage in rage bait, get attention and secure brand deals.

    Capitalism can appease men to promote consumerism wrapped in misogyny. Corporations can capitalize on women's loneliness and low self-worth.

    I have noticed that women with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations, the money they will earn will be expanded on consumerisms/additions which again can be profited by capitalism and corporate.

    The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (women) taking matters in their own hands and rescuing each other I don't think there is enough incentive to help women as community or whole

    I understand your thoughts experiment, and I assure you that I am not assuming that this thought comes from a place of malice. The second thing is that I would be using an LLM model to fix my grammar, so it might sound like an LLM response, and my word choice might not be as precise as native ones.

    I want you to understand that my comment wasn't in contrast to women but to society. Helping women isn't coming from goodwill or a soft spot but as a means to an end. What end? Exercising soft power for powerful people¹, brownie points for PR², and more consumers for capitalism.³

    1. Saving women and children is still shown as a positive attribute, not as some general attribute. The thing is, people doing this are well aware of that. Recently, when Trump blocked the USAIDs and some other beneficiaries that helped victim groups, a lot of people who championed feminism and the welfare of the weak straight up on camera started babbling about how the USA will lose its soft power in other countries. You can call me naive, but it baffled me. You don't have to pretend that there is no soft power, but at least keep people's welfare as the central piece of your argument or concerns.

    2. Brownie points: Saving women or appearing to work for helping women is used for PR by political figures, corporations, and people who want to be at the center of attention. Though recently, this one isn't going very well because, due to the internet and the large availability of information, it is very easy to check for credibility. However, there is still enough bias that can be exploited.

    3. How can I explain this one? Think about it: you don't want half of your customers locked away and banished when you can sell them consumerism as rebellion (the search for cigarettes as feminism).

    If you paid attention, all these three situations are beneficial only as long as women are presented as victims or oppressed. Since there is no David without Goliath, we get men as the oppressor or ultimate evil.

    Capitalism can appease men to promote consumerism wrapped in misogyny. Corporations can capitalize on women's loneliness and low self-worth.

    Patriarchy can use women to portray the ultimate evil.

    No, these both can't be promoted to the same extreme, as it will lead to people resorting to gender roles while expecting others not to, creating extremely competitive conditions for men, as the patriarchy will push the gender role of men asking out, taking financial responsibility, etc. If we assume misogyny is high too, they will soon check out of the dating scene, leading to a fall in the birth rate, which isn't too great for capitalism. We have a whole country as an example of why capitalism's incentives don't lie with promoting misogyny; can you guess that country? :::Yes, it is South Korea.:::

    For capitalism to thrive, it needs just enough modulated patriarchy and misogyny where men remain competitive with each other, and even those who give up remain consumers in the form of some consumerism addiction. If misogyny and patriarchy are promoted enough and spiral out of control, people will check out of society.

    I have noticed that women with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations. The money they earn will be spent on consumerism/addictions, which again can be profited by capitalism and corporations.

    I can't comment on this, as it was anecdotal from my side, and this can be anecdotal from your side.

    The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (women) taking matters into their own hands and rescuing each other, I don't think there is enough incentive to help women as a community or as a whole.

    You are completely wrong on this one. The divide is very important. If they (the rich and powerful) let go of this illusion of helping women or the underprivileged or making it all appear as meritocracy, it will turn into rich vs. poor, and this has never worked in favor of the rich. To maintain this illusion or facade that they are not the perpetrators of the current worsening of society, they need bogeymen, which, of course, we know who they are, and make them appear as saviors they need victim too, and we are back to square one.

    You know what is ironic? This portrayal of bogeymen and its consequences isn't backfiring on the rich and powerful but is becoming a tool to exchange power between different factions of the same wealthy individuals.

  • 57 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    P
    I tried before, but I made my life hell on earth. I only have whatsapp now because its mandatory. Since 2022, I only have lemmy, mastodon and unfortunately whatsapp as social media.
  • 238 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    P
    I was so confused when I saw your comment until I reread my own. It really is top notch technology I guess!
  • Let the A.I work or not?

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 33 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    rooki@lemmy.worldR
    Woah in 2 years, that will be definitly not be forgotten until then....
  • Amazon is reportedly training humanoid robots to deliver packages

    Technology technology
    143
    1
    300 Stimmen
    143 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    M
    Yup, and people seem to frequently underestimate how ridiculously expensive running a fleet of humanoid robots would be (and don’t seem to realize how comparatively low the manual labor it’d replace is paid.)
  • Programming languages

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 463 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 5 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    S
    You could look into automatic local caching for diles you're planning to seed, and stick that on an SSD. That way you don't hammer the HDDs in the NAS and still get the good feels of seeding. Then automatically delete files once they get to a certain seed rate or something and you're golden. How aggressive you go with this depends on your actual use case. Are you actually editing raw footage over the network while multiple other clients are streaming other stuff? Or are you just interested in having it be capable? What's the budget? But that sounds complicated. I'd personally rather just DIY it, that way you can put an SSD in there for cache and you get most of the benefits with a lot less cost, and you should be able to respond to issues with minimal changes (i.e. add more RAM or another caching drive).