Skip to content

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

Technology
237 86 0
  • I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority

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

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

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

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

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

    positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit: re-read your reply and realized I did not read it properly the first time. That’ll teach me to comment in the wee hours LOL. I greatly appreciate your response! Leaving the original reply in place for the sake of context.

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

    This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.

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

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

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

  • positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit: re-read your reply and realized I did not read it properly the first time. That’ll teach me to comment in the wee hours LOL. I greatly appreciate your response! Leaving the original reply in place for the sake of context.

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

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

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

    This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.

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

  • positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit: re-read your reply and realized I did not read it properly the first time. That’ll teach me to comment in the wee hours LOL. I greatly appreciate your response! Leaving the original reply in place for the sake of context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sounds reasonable.

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

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

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

    The gender equality narrative got too focused on excluding men

    As a man, I've never been made to feel excluded by gender equality in any way whatsoever.

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

    The manosphere is easy to understand. People hate doing work and taking accountability. So just blame the problems on someone else, and watch my podcast and buy my shit.

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

    Excellent example, and I sincerely appreciate you engaging in good faith discussion!

    I agree that being masculine should by default not be a barrier - social or otherwise - from working with children.

    How do we begin to change that as a society?

    Although I can’t think of the solution myself, I also don’t see how advancing equality for feminine individuals would hold back equality for masculine individuals.

    As mentioned in another comment, a lot of these problems seem to stem from the enforcement of dated gender norms.

  • 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...

    It's worth diving into what they are classifying in this influencers group. They even point out that some of it offers helpful and genuine support. But it sounds like they would even consider a men's therapy or coaching business in this group, or even something like that Mankind Project. I am just guessing but that kind of group is a world away from the typical toxic manosphere stereotype.

  • 396 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    devfuuu@lemmy.worldD
    Lots of people have kids nowadays in their houses, we should ban all of that and out them all in a specialized center or something. I can't imagine what all those people are doing with kids behind close doors under he guise of "family". Truly scary if you think about it.
  • 711 Stimmen
    144 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    A
    Was it Biden? Obama?
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    9 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.
  • 24 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    S
    I think you're missing some key points. Any file hosting service, no matter what, will have to deal with CSAM as long as people are able to upload to it. No matter what. This is an inescapable fact of hosting and the internet in general. Because CSAM is so ubiquitous and constant, one can only do so much to moderate any services, whether they're a large corporation are someone with a server in their closet. All of the larger platforms like 'meta', google, etc., mostly outsource that moderation to workers in developing countries so they don't have to also provide mental health counselling, but that's another story. The reason they own their own hardware is because the hosting services can and will disable your account and take down your servers if there's even a whiff of CSAM. Since it's a constant threat, it's better to own your own hardware and host everything from your closet so you don't have to eat the downtime and wait for some poor bastard in Nigeria to look through your logs and reinstate your account (not sure how that works exactly though).
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    D
    I don't think accuracy is an issue either. I've been on the web since inception and we always had a terribly inaccurate information landscape. It's really about individual ability to put together found information to an accurate world model and LLMs is a tool just like any other. The real issues imo are effects on society be it information manipulation, breaking our education and workforce systems. But all of that is overshadowed by meme issues like energy use or inaccuracy as these are easy to understand for any person while sociology, politics and macro economics are really hard.
  • 1 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Z
    Yes i'm looking for erp system like sap
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    L
    I think the principle could be applied to scan outside of the machine. It is making requests to 127.0.0.1:{port} - effectively using your computer as a "server" in a sort of reverse-SSRF attack. There's no reason it can't make requests to 10.10.10.1:{port} as well. Of course you'd need to guess the netmask of the network address range first, but this isn't that hard. In fact, if you consider that at least as far as the desktop site goes, most people will be browsing the web behind a standard consumer router left on defaults where it will be the first device in the DHCP range (e.g. 192.168.0.1 or 10.10.10.1), which tends to have a web UI on the LAN interface (port 8080, 80 or 443), then you'd only realistically need to scan a few addresses to determine the network address range. If you want to keep noise even lower, using just 192.168.0.1:80 and 192.168.1.1:80 I'd wager would cover 99% of consumer routers. From there you could assume that it's a /24 netmask and scan IPs to your heart's content. You could do top 10 most common ports type scans and go in-depth on anything you get a result on. I haven't tested this, but I don't see why it wouldn't work, when I was testing 13ft.io - a self-hosted 12ft.io paywall remover, an SSRF flaw like this absolutely let you perform any network request to any LAN address in range.
  • 2 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    F
    IMO stuff like that is why a good trainer is important. IMO it's stronger evidence that proper user-centered design should be done and a usable and intuitive UX and set of APIs developed. But because the buyer of this heap of shit is some C-level, there is no incentive to actually make it usable for the unfortunate peons who are forced to interact with it. See also SFDC and every ERP solution in existence.