Skip to content

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

Technology
351 111 5.7k
  • 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.

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

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

    Yeah.... I didn't think the culture was as ubiquitous. Kinda scary to see on a platform with so many self professed "leftist". You can't seriously think you are on the left when you only care about providing for your specific demographic.

    The kids are not alright apparently.

  • Bill maher touched on this last night on his show, and i cant believe im seeing more of it.

    He argued men are shat on far to often in todays media with female leads taking more lead roles.

    He also brought up countless movies starting in the 80s that pushed the dumb dad/male narrative that persists today.

    Does he have a point? Yeah idk really.

    Get told you’re evil, and the cause of societies problems enough times, you start to believe it.

    My ex wife did it to me, always assumed the worst. So I became the worst. It wasn’t even a conscious decision. I just checked out.

    Simplistic take, but I see it every day.

  • 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.

    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.

    The same can be said about you too, you know you are not getting shit done against the ownership class so resorting to insulting and demeaning anyone who appears privileged to you.

    You want to really fight a class war? How about starting by not out of frustration humiliating anyone who has different symptoms of the same problem as you.

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

    Sure men talking about their problems is misogyny, you can't gate keep the left, and anybody who is reading this, some people at left accept you and adversiory despite of your gender . your are not abonded. Seek out help. There are still people who will help you.

  • Yeah.... I didn't think the culture was as ubiquitous. Kinda scary to see on a platform with so many self professed "leftist". You can't seriously think you are on the left when you only care about providing for your specific demographic.

    The kids are not alright apparently.

    IMO the limited subset arguing here support authoritarianism. Generally a male dominated profession. Seems to be a burgeoning market these days.

  • 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.

    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.

    I did what?

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

    I've been using this thread as an opportunity to talk about a positive example, and that's the marked increase in male childcare workers in Germany. I pointed out some masculine influencers doing good work. I bemoaned that much "X for women/girls" stuff is half-assed feel-good BS, prone to causing more harm than good (because half-assed, because it's done for optics instead of the thing itself).

    I've been constructive. I didn't lash out and try to put people down for caring about their issues. I didn't wrap people up in ass-long back and forth threads demanding justification after justification why they care just to find an excuse to pounce, then ride my high horse into the sunset.

    Oh, and I also shot the horse of some guy.

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

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

    Mate, what many of those so-called gururs of "manosphere" do is called capitalising on misery of others, not solving. Which I have already covered in my comment above.

  • 218 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    F
    Even more reason not to use Meta products.
  • 722 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    230 Aufrufe
    S
    All the research I am aware of - including what I referenced in the previous comment, is that people are honest by default, except for a few people who lie a lot. Boris Johnson is a serial liar and clearly falls into that camp. I believe that you believe that, but a couple of surveys are not a sufficient argument to prove the fundamental good of all humanity. If honesty were not the default, why would we believe what anyone has to say in situations where they have an incentive to lie, which is often? Why are such a small proportion of people criminals and fraudsters when for a lot of crimes, someone smart and cautious has a very low chance of being caught? I think this is just a lack of imagination. i will go through your scenarios and provide an answer but i don't think it's going to achieve anything, we just fundamentally disagree on this. why would we believe what anyone has to say in situations where they have an incentive to lie, which is often? You shouldn't. edit : You use experience with this person or in general, to make a judgement call about whether or not you want to listen to what they have to say until more data is available. You continue to refine based on accumulated experience. Why are such a small proportion of people criminals and fraudsters when for a lot of crimes, someone smart and cautious has a very low chance of being caught? A lot of assumptions and leaps here. Firstly crime implies actual law, which is different in different places, so let's assume for now we are talking about the current laws in the uk. Criminals implies someone who has been caught and prosecuted for breaking a law, I'm going with that assumption because "everyone who has ever broken a law" is a ridiculous interpretation. So to encompass the assumptions: Why are such a small proportion of people who have been caught and prosecuted for breaking the law in the uk, when someone smart and caution has a very low chance of being caught? I hope you can see how nonsensical that question is. The evolutionary argument goes like this: social animals have selection pressure for traits that help the social group, because the social group contains related individuals, as well as carrying memetically inheritable behaviours. This means that the most successful groups are the ones that work well together. A group first of all has an incentive to punish individuals who act selfishly to harm the group - this will mean the group contains mostly individuals who, through self interest, will not betray the group. But a group which doesn’t have to spend energy finding and punishing traitorous individuals because it doesn’t contain as many in the first place will do even better. This creates a selection pressure behind mere self interest. That's a nicely worded very bias interpretation. social animals have selection pressure for traits that help the social group, because the social group contains related individuals, as well as carrying memetically inheritable behaviours. This is fine. This means that the most successful groups are the ones that work well together. That's a jump, working well together might not be the desirable trait in this instance. But let's assume it is for now. A group first of all has an incentive to punish individuals who act selfishly to harm the group - this will mean the group contains mostly individuals who, through self interest, will not betray the group. Reductive and assumptive, you're also conflating selfishness with betrayal, you can have on without the other, depending on perceived definitions of course. But a group which doesn’t have to spend energy finding and punishing traitorous individuals because it doesn’t contain as many in the first place will do even better. This creates a selection pressure behind mere self interest. Additional reduction and a further unsupported jump, individuals are more than just a single trait, selfishness might be desirable in certain scenarios or it might be a part of an individual who's other traits make up for it in a tribal context. The process of seeking and the focused attention might be a preferential selection trait that benefits the group. Powerful grifters try to protect themselves yes, but who got punished for pointing out that Boris is a serial liar? Everyone who has been negatively impacted by the policies enacted and consequences of everything that was achieved on the back of those lies. Because being ignored is still a punishment if there are negative consequences. But let's pick a more active punishment, protesting. Protest in a way we don't like or about a subject we don't approve of, it's now illegal to protest unless we give permission. That's reductive, but indicative of what happened in broad strokes. Have you read what the current government has said about the previous one? I'd imagine something along the lines of what the previous government said about the one before ? As a society we generally hate that kind of behaviour. Society as a whole does not protect wealth and power; wealth and power forms its own group which tries to protect itself. Depends on how you define society as a whole. By population, i agree. By actual power to enact change(without extreme measures), less so Convenient that you don't include the wealth and power as part of society, like its some other separate thing. You should care because it entirely colours how you interact with political life. “Shady behaviour” is about intent as well as outcome, and we are talking in this thread about shady behaviour, and hence about intent. See [POINT A]
  • 210 Stimmen
    32 Beiträge
    153 Aufrufe
    S
    No need for good computers to train agents. They don't need to play crysis to train as hackers. Something on the level of a Pi (or more accurately of a 2010 laptop) is good enough.
  • A global environmental standard for AI | Mistral

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    80 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    47 Aufrufe
    I
    The way they show their equivalence is very useful. The water and materials especially. Though the ghg is a little odd as streaming is in itself a complex web.
  • Comment utiliser ChatGPT : le guide complet - BDM

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 196 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    221 Aufrufe
    S
    Sure: for professionals. However when casually commenting in a forum it is fine because the reader can go check the citations (and perhaps come back and add to the thread).
  • 0 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    107 Aufrufe
    A
    You mean original app signature?
  • 12 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    41 Aufrufe
    F
    The new Pebble watches look interesting. Relatively basic, but long battery life (they promise) and open-source operating system.