Skip to content

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

Technology
289 98 0
  • There is nothing that needs or requires 50/50 nor is there any benefit to society by forcing it besides being able to say "now it's equal". Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks. Men are needed there to provide strict authority for kids when they are not behaving well and for developing skills such as sports, engineering and emotional reslilience.

    Your first sentence is completely sensible, the rest is completely toxic and also BS gender roles. Don't project your emotional and social incapacity on me.

    If my wife were to tell my kids "wait until your father comes home" a) they'll get off 110% scot-free because they already suffered enough dread and b) she'll get an earful. Ideally, though, of course, you'll date someone emotionally and socially mature enough so that won't be an issue. Someone who can stand up for herself, is actually competent, and doesn't make your kids hate you.

    Also please explain: Women are good at emotional stuff but then you need the man to do the emotional resilience thing... what? I know plenty of women who I'm pretty sure could beat you up and work with plenty of brilliant female engineers, and are you accusing me of not caring. Am I just pretending to care about people? Does caring about people not come natural to you? Maybe that's a thing you should mull over.

  • 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.

    Women: it's all about us, we have our own "online safe spaces" where only women are allowed because in history, men were bad to women, It's filled with vitriolic chronically-online women where we go around calling men "cunts". Men should respect this and start up their own community if they want.

    Men: <they do that>. It's given a derogatory name so public opinion can be manipulated - marketing 101.

    Women: We don't like it. It's not all about us, men are bad to us. They threaten equality - it's all their fault.

    I got banned from two communities on Lemmy recently asking if it really should be host to communities that are exclusionary based on protected characteristics such as gender (to stop extremism). Lots of women moaned and were vitriolically abusive - how dare I call their army out. Community hosts really need to get a grip on such things and encourage inclusionary communities, not exclusionary. Whilst this practice goes on, racist/sexist/other extremist opinions will be fostered on the host and in those communities.

    Politics such as "yeah, well, populist opinion makes us feel like we need to separate ourselves from you because you're not <insert protected characteristic we only like>..." but we totally respect you and want to talk to you as normal in other communities when we want to, is incongruent to the whole concept of an inclusive community that fosters equality such as Lemmy should be.

    (And if I had to guess, I think there are some bots on Lemmy also spouting vitriolic replies to stir up such hatred amogst these who isolate themselves - making themselves prime targets for manipulation - all to stir up chaos on a national level)

  • 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.

    Thank you, I am actually shocked by such positive feedback, as I never expect anything positive in online discussions 😄

    Well, there is not much that needs to be adjusted in traditional values. Or, to put it lightly, that was never the problem to begin with. In traditional roles, both genders use their advantage to the max, and it has worked for millenia.

    The issue is that there is a smaller % of both genders, who wish to do something "out of the norm". Men who want to work in childcare and women who want to drive trucks. That small % should be able to do so, without discrimination. That's it. That's all to it, why this entire woke thing blew up. We should preserve the traditional roles as they have proven themselves to work effectively, but we need to adjust it to be flexible for things that don't fit in the traditional norms.

    From somewhere came the narrative that men are gatekeeping women from all important positions, and women in fight for their rights to be equal went the same route to basically gatekeep men in the name of equality. And now we are in this weird limbo where the genders seem to undermine each other whereever they can.

  • 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 don't know. Look at all the Tate Todgers around. Also, it does not help that women basically treat men as super-predators. With resentment and contempt nowadays. Leading to...well, men doing the same.

    Really, kiss the decency we used to have goodbye. It's all gone now. Best everyone focus on protecting themselves, let the population collapse.

  • Lots of feminists want to blame every problem on men. That backfired and now a lot of men are doing the same.

    Loneliness and being disconnected from the community doesn't help either.

    But no one owes us any attention. That is why we have AI.

  • 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.

    This is what happens when you take a gender, destroy their ability to develop emotional regulation and meaningful connections outside of the sexual and then dump them online in a slow rolling apocalypse.

    The ones who haven't found a way out have killed themselves or gravitated to mad idolatry of shysters and fools to fill the dopamine void.

    We have failed our men.

  • 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

    Men are by default worth less really. One man can impregnate many women. If you look at society from a more cynical perspective as just resources, it makes sense that men are inherently far less worth than women.

    Value as people? Pfft, forget it. When was that ever practiced?

  • Lots of feminists want to blame every problem on men. That backfired and now a lot of men are doing the same.

    Loneliness and being disconnected from the community doesn't help either.

    Really? Like who? I only ever see or read feminists blaming issues on systemic issues of the patriarchy. Which is not the same as blaming all men at all.

    Much the same as saying 'the healthcare system in the US is fucked' is not the same as saying 'all healthcare workers are fucked'.

  • Because people are lonely and the internet is telling men it's the women’s fault.

    And internet is telling women it’s men fault.
    And poor people it’s immigrants fault.
    And insecure people it’s trans fault.

    We are the most narcissistic generation ever: it’s always someone else fault… and while we are arguing online changes go in the wrong direction (more inequality, more war, less affordable education that means less social mobility)

  • Men are by default worth less really. One man can impregnate many women. If you look at society from a more cynical perspective as just resources, it makes sense that men are inherently far less worth than women.

    Value as people? Pfft, forget it. When was that ever practiced?

    Women are the big spenders online.

  • 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.

    And as usual, in an act of irony, men are the biggest misandrist, and my biggest source of pain. I don't like this social contract where I get fucked over no matter what. I'm just going to abandon it, and lead a massive exile with me. I already have a solar panel, and plan to get more.

  • I don't know. Look at all the Tate Todgers around. Also, it does not help that women basically treat men as super-predators. With resentment and contempt nowadays. Leading to...well, men doing the same.

    Really, kiss the decency we used to have goodbye. It's all gone now. Best everyone focus on protecting themselves, let the population collapse.

    it does not help that women basically treat men as super-predators.

    let's do without these stupid kinds of generalizations, alright?
    Very few women actually have resentments towards (all) men. And many of them do so as a result of trauma.

  • When a person has a systemic privilege, sometimes equality feels like oppression to them.

    Like what privilege? Not being able to vent or show negative emotions ever? Being shit on for having a penis? Fear and loathing? Being first one to be drafted for war? Being threated as an expendable resource that has no right to complain about anything, and that should just shut up, and work in some hellish factory until their health gives out, then die?

    Power isn't everything you know. It's why I'm more than happy to become as independent of society as possible. Why I'm happy to see the nukes fall. You just want to use me, and leave a corpse behind. Just want to accuse me of other men's crimes.

    Well good luck ever manipulating me again, now that I know what's up.

  • And internet is telling women it’s men fault.
    And poor people it’s immigrants fault.
    And insecure people it’s trans fault.

    We are the most narcissistic generation ever: it’s always someone else fault… and while we are arguing online changes go in the wrong direction (more inequality, more war, less affordable education that means less social mobility)

    And internet is telling women it’s men fault.

    well they have a point. it's not all men who do messed up shit, but if messed up shit happens, it is usually because of men.

  • Women: it's all about us, we have our own "online safe spaces" where only women are allowed because in history, men were bad to women, It's filled with vitriolic chronically-online women where we go around calling men "cunts". Men should respect this and start up their own community if they want.

    Men: <they do that>. It's given a derogatory name so public opinion can be manipulated - marketing 101.

    Women: We don't like it. It's not all about us, men are bad to us. They threaten equality - it's all their fault.

    I got banned from two communities on Lemmy recently asking if it really should be host to communities that are exclusionary based on protected characteristics such as gender (to stop extremism). Lots of women moaned and were vitriolically abusive - how dare I call their army out. Community hosts really need to get a grip on such things and encourage inclusionary communities, not exclusionary. Whilst this practice goes on, racist/sexist/other extremist opinions will be fostered on the host and in those communities.

    Politics such as "yeah, well, populist opinion makes us feel like we need to separate ourselves from you because you're not <insert protected characteristic we only like>..." but we totally respect you and want to talk to you as normal in other communities when we want to, is incongruent to the whole concept of an inclusive community that fosters equality such as Lemmy should be.

    (And if I had to guess, I think there are some bots on Lemmy also spouting vitriolic replies to stir up such hatred amogst these who isolate themselves - making themselves prime targets for manipulation - all to stir up chaos on a national level)

    people who face systemic discrimmination often strive to create environments that are safe and respectful for their own group. They don't do that because they want to be exclusive, but because they don't have the power to make the spaces they are in respectful and accomodating for them.

    So if we have the intention to create inclusive spaces and we have the power to do so, then we shouldn't go after the ones who segregate themselves to avoid discrimmination, but instead we should change our own environments so that they don't feel the need anymore to have their own space.

  • 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 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.

  • When you go on social media almost all discussion concerning men is about how they are the root of all evil, and everything they do is wrong. It's a never ending stream of shaming with no clear way out. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't: If you try to defend yourself or talk about your own problems as a man, it is labeled as misogyny. "Be vulnerable and open up" they say but if you do it's "don't center men you privileged fuck" or "you're being a crybaby".

    This is a sentiment often repeated by manosphere influencers and there’s no actual tangible evidence it exists and I think that’s the real issue. The influencers aren’t at all a symptom of a problem men are facing, they are selling men on a problem that doesn’t exist (for money).

    I have never at any point in my life (which encompasses the entire lifespan of the internet) been subjected to any significant amount of misandry online or in person. When men talk about experiencing misandry online, it’s almost always in the context of them making comments on content geared towards a women’s issue and invalidating the women’s issue while simultaneously making it about themselves.

    You mention being a progressive at heart, forced to cloak yourself in more perceived masculine features as if they are at odds with each other. I too am a progressive and I have never felt like that’s been at odds with my masculinity. I’ve never had a problem taking leadership roles, using force to solve problems, even violently when necessary, and I know how to put my emotions aside in order to get things done. At the same time I have no problems sharing my feelings or being vulnerable with the people I love and trust. I’ve never had an issue following a woman or being in an equal partnership like my marriage is. You can be all these things and my experience with women is that the right ones love you for it.

    The real issue is solely man-created and exists solely in the mind, and the manosphere exists to tell you in its not in your mind, that’s it’s real, and that it’s everyone’s fault but your own. They monetize your attention, they sell you supplements and books, none of which are actually designed to help you solve your problems, because if you escape your cycle of self destruction, the money stops.

    You mentioned that you’re dating a woman and you feel like you have to hide who you are for her to love you? My friend that’s not you being masculine, nor is it you being “progressive”.

    Real masculinity, the kind that these influencers refuse to sell you, is having enough self respect to be yourself. If you want to open up and share your feelings with someone then that’s what you’re damn well going to do. And if she isn’t ok with that then she can find someone else.

    That's because most of the misandry is ironically caused by men. You can't fucking breathe the way you want, without another man finding a weakness in that, and shitting all over you.

  • it does not help that women basically treat men as super-predators.

    let's do without these stupid kinds of generalizations, alright?
    Very few women actually have resentments towards (all) men. And many of them do so as a result of trauma.

    Cool that someone is at least against generalizations.

  • 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.

    Better paid jobs are usually more risky, competitive and harsh with short deadlines, that why the are paid more than jobs where you can just do your shift and happily go home like daycare or teaching. It happens that men simply naturally want the adrenaline and excitement that comes with the first because they want to prove themselves.

    If you look into history, men where those that went hunting which can be dangerous, while women were those who collected berries and nursed children, not much danger there.

    As a man, I actually thing women are crazy for not wanting to keep being a houswife a thing. It's like being the CEO of the house. WFH guaranteed, you are the one making plans and deadlines, minimal stress, and you have probably enough spare time to do whatever you want as a hobby on the side (unless you have small children). I truly don't see the downside, I would thrive in home improvement and gardening....

  • Women are the big spenders online.

    Spenders? That's not what it's all about. You simply need less men to keep humanity going, and you basically just exist to do the heavy lifting, and protect women from beasts (that are no longer a threat). So if you are born a man, you lost the lottery. You are forced to engage in dumb, detrimental behavior, or be ostracized. You are forced on a death march.

  • 270 Stimmen
    76 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    C
    God forbid he should have asked his parents. Or the kids nanny.
  • The U.S. Immigration and Customs

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Understanding the impacts of generative AI use on children

    Technology technology
    4
    50 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    S
    That's fine, just use ChatGPT...
  • 811 Stimmen
    152 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    C
    Do you mean investors are trying to manipulate stocks by planting stories? Yeah, I think so. But intelligence agencies have whole training programs on how to manipulate narratives, and a very long track record of doing so. See: Israel's hasbara apparatus, GCHQ leaked documents on infiltrating and derailing socialist discussions, Church Committee Hearings, "The Cultural Cold War" by Frances Stonor Saunders.
  • 817 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    C
    And then price us out
  • 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.
  • 580 Stimmen
    278 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    V
    The main difference being the consequences that might result from the surveillance.
  • WhatsApp is working on video and voice calls on the web

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    6 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    A
    Worked well for me. Although all the people I care about had already Signal, Element or Threema installed, so I am not a great pull factor. And those everyday moms from child care or from wherever can reach me via SMS, for the two messages/year.