Why is the manosphere on the rise? UN Women sounds the alarm over online misogyny
Technology
289
Beiträge
98
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
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.
-
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'.
I get what you're saying, and you're right that blaming "the system" isn't the same as blaming every individual. But in practice, a lot of young men hear exactly that kind of blame coming at them personally. Maybe that’s not what’s intended, but it’s how it lands. Especially when the messaging is constant and there’s no room for nuance.
Look at how often phrases like “male privilege” or “toxic masculinity” get thrown around without any real context. Not all of us grew up with privilege. Some of us were raised by single moms, worked garbage jobs, got chewed up by the military, or have been beaten down by life. So when someone says we’re part of some oppressive system we supposedly benefit from, it can feel like a gut punch. Not everyone takes it personally, but enough guys do that entire online communities have formed around that frustration.
And here’s the thing. Academically, I get what patriarchy means. But I think we need to unpack it in a broader way. We should be asking who actually benefits from it. Because it sure as hell isn’t the guy sweating in a ditch or working a night shift at a warehouse. Patriarchy isn’t a blanket of power that covers all men equally. It’s a system that, like most systems, tends to reward the rich. The guy at the top. The one with the money, the connections, and the insulation from consequence. It’s less about gender in the real world and more about class, and when we ignore that, we miss the full picture.
Not all critiques stay abstract either. I’ve seen feminist writers and influencers say things like “men are trash,” “all men are potential predators,” or “if you’re not actively dismantling the patriarchy, you’re part of the problem.” Maybe that’s not what academic feminism teaches, but it’s out there. Loud, viral, and shaping how these conversations are received.
Just like you can say the healthcare system is broken without attacking nurses, you can criticize patriarchy without alienating people. But the way it's said matters. If someone walks away from that conversation feeling like they’ve just been blamed for everything, they are not going to stick around and talk. They’ll shut down, get bitter, and start listening to whoever does make them feel seen. Even if that person is a complete grifter or extremist.
We have to stop just talking about young men like they’re a problem to be fixed. We need to start talking to them, honestly and with some respect. Otherwise, we are going to keep losing them to the worst voices out there.
-
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.
You went into extreme edge cases to prove your point. Of course both genders can do both, but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house? Will I just put the burden on my wife and say "hey, you are mature and strong and independent - handle it and let me get a beer".
As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once. Both are emotional aspects but they are exactly the opposite aspects and complement each other. Kids do need both. Women happen to be better at empathy, and men tend to be better at regulating emotions.
Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don't want to be in?
-
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.
we should change our own environments so that they don’t feel the need anymore to have their own space.
"we" unequivocally means "men", right? And how is this done... by preventing exclusive communities and only having inclusive communities. "Online" and "safe spaces" are oxymorons.
-
You went into extreme edge cases to prove your point. Of course both genders can do both, but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house? Will I just put the burden on my wife and say "hey, you are mature and strong and independent - handle it and let me get a beer".
As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once. Both are emotional aspects but they are exactly the opposite aspects and complement each other. Kids do need both. Women happen to be better at empathy, and men tend to be better at regulating emotions.
Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don't want to be in?
but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house?
You want to be a housekeeper? More power to you then but if your wife is an engineer and earns the money why do you suppose she can't teach kids about it?
She's the housekeeper and does tell the kids "just wait until your father gets home"? She's training them to hate you, alienate them from you, that's a giant red flag. Make sure to connect up with them or you're going to have a hard time in custody court.
As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once.
Nope. Both are very capable of doing both. Again: Please don't project your hangups onto others. Female fainting is just as much a trained behaviour (ultimately, an act the actor believes themselves), as male callousness.
Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don’t want to be in?
I'm not forcing anyone here, it's you who's drawing lines in the sand, "men shall do this, women shall do that".
Boys, on average, like to wrestle a hell a lot more than girls, are interested in mechanical things more, when playing they care about outside things. Girls, on average, develop their fine motor skills well before boys, and their play focusses on social scenarios, in a bounded (inside) context.
Let them learn in the order and manner as they see fit, that's absolutely fine and natural. But you're an adult, not a kid, your competencies should, by now, have expanded beyond that initial set and focus. If you're under the impression that "women are better at this, men are better at that" then you're either 12 and/or are living in a society which actively stifles human development.
-
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.
And how are women pushed out of "man jobs"?
And how are we fixing that?
Is it bosses that aim to have male coworkers turning down women? How is that different than bosses wanting artificially 50/50 turning down men?
Is it not being represented in advertising? How is that different than what happens now. Where most advertising displays just women? Or if there is both a man and a woman, the woman is usually centered in the picture or doing a more important/powerful role.
By "encouraging" women in the workplace, what you see is things being done to men that you complain was done to women.
-
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.
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.
Yep, and this is how marginalised communities are formed. Same with the text below.
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’smen's fault, or society’s fault, or anyone but you. That stuff spreads fast because it gives people something to belong to.And is why both POV are bad and should be removed from Lemmy. The owners of such communities get off on having their own army, not that they think they're helping the cause.
-
we should change our own environments so that they don’t feel the need anymore to have their own space.
"we" unequivocally means "men", right? And how is this done... by preventing exclusive communities and only having inclusive communities. "Online" and "safe spaces" are oxymorons.
by "we" I mean everyone who has the ability to do so.
And how is this done... by preventing exclusive communities and only have inclusive communities.
you cannot just claim a community is inclusive. When members in it don't feel comfortable, then it is not inclusive for them.
We just have to let people who constantly suffer any sort of discrimination have their own space. When they feel welcome outside of it they'll feel less need to be in their own "exclusive" space. Blaming them for segregating themselves is thinking of it the wrong way.
"Online" and "safe spaces" are oxymorons.
I don't think they are. The fediverse is a great tool for it. There are servers that have the intention to offer a safe environment for certain identities.
-
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.
Nothing against the article but why is this in /c/Technology ?
If something has word online/Internet on it does not mean it has something to do with technology.
-
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.
YEAh and because a woman gave birth to that man, it's women's fault.!!1
Logic is good.
-
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.
We have failed our men.
These are the type of feminists the world needs.
-
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.So it's ok to hate men based on certain criteria you define? Even if it's due to (your) trauma, that still doesn't make it ok to project hatred towards men.
-
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'.
But there is no formal 'system' like the healthcare system. Anytime a man is perceived as being in charge (for whatever reason and context), it becomes the "patriarchy" and subject to feminist ridicule and hatred, thus generalising hatred on men.
-
Nothing against the article but why is this in /c/Technology ?
If something has word online/Internet on it does not mean it has something to do with technology.
So... What exactly is your definition of what should be posted in the technology community?
-
by "we" I mean everyone who has the ability to do so.
And how is this done... by preventing exclusive communities and only have inclusive communities.
you cannot just claim a community is inclusive. When members in it don't feel comfortable, then it is not inclusive for them.
We just have to let people who constantly suffer any sort of discrimination have their own space. When they feel welcome outside of it they'll feel less need to be in their own "exclusive" space. Blaming them for segregating themselves is thinking of it the wrong way.
"Online" and "safe spaces" are oxymorons.
I don't think they are. The fediverse is a great tool for it. There are servers that have the intention to offer a safe environment for certain identities.
you cannot just claim a community is inclusive. When members in it don’t feel comfortable, then it is not inclusive for them.
Of course it's possible. If they don't feel comfortable, then more questions need to be asked as to why they the individual do not and nothing will change until the focus is on individual feelings of those who <feel> marginalised so then inclusive communities can be fostered to work together, and not manipulating the world to pander to those who feel marginalised using anger, derision, and hatred. This leads to better inclusivity, better understanding, which in turn allows for better rules/systems to develop. They can not be fostered by force/anger/because we say so's.
constantly suffer any sort of discimination
"Constantly"? But they don't. They may feel they do due to some mental illness, manipulation by e.g. exclusionary groups that breed hatred of a target etc, but they don't "suffer" constantly. That's just polluted rhetoric in the Western world.
Exclusive communities don't "help" those people who think they're discriminated against to become inclusive, they only strengthen the isolation and strengthen the hatred against those they feel discriminated by, run by people who enjoy the power they have over their victims - the community members.
What some people seem to generally be writing in this thread is that women can have exclusive groups but men cannot because women don't like such groups, all without seeing the irony.
-
So... What exactly is your definition of what should be posted in the technology community?
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I personally browse this community for tech news and updates, this seems more like an American societal problem. Not something happening all around the world. Personally i won't be interested in reading the article because I live in Asia and the society here is completely different. This kind of misogyny is not seen by me.
-
but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house?
You want to be a housekeeper? More power to you then but if your wife is an engineer and earns the money why do you suppose she can't teach kids about it?
She's the housekeeper and does tell the kids "just wait until your father gets home"? She's training them to hate you, alienate them from you, that's a giant red flag. Make sure to connect up with them or you're going to have a hard time in custody court.
As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once.
Nope. Both are very capable of doing both. Again: Please don't project your hangups onto others. Female fainting is just as much a trained behaviour (ultimately, an act the actor believes themselves), as male callousness.
Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don’t want to be in?
I'm not forcing anyone here, it's you who's drawing lines in the sand, "men shall do this, women shall do that".
Boys, on average, like to wrestle a hell a lot more than girls, are interested in mechanical things more, when playing they care about outside things. Girls, on average, develop their fine motor skills well before boys, and their play focusses on social scenarios, in a bounded (inside) context.
Let them learn in the order and manner as they see fit, that's absolutely fine and natural. But you're an adult, not a kid, your competencies should, by now, have expanded beyond that initial set and focus. If you're under the impression that "women are better at this, men are better at that" then you're either 12 and/or are living in a society which actively stifles human development.
I absolutely never said most of the things you claim here that I have said. I never said that one gender can't do what the other can. Will you stop putting words in my mouth?
If you're under the impression that "women are better at this, men are better at that" then you're either 12 and/or are living in a society which actively stifles human development.
This seems awfully ignorant. I guess you think also men are equally good at giving birth and breastfeeding? If so, no need to discuss anymore. Let's agree to disagree.
