Skip to content

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

Technology
351 111 1.5k
  • 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.

  • 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.

    the manosphere continuing to build power is all from capitalism, which has removed upward growth and community spaces for young white men. I say white because men from minority groups already have those problems but they don't have the inherent privileges that allow angry white men to make their problems into everyone's problems. also parents and schools dont have any resources to deal with children who are already sucked into the manosphere, short of cutting off access to the Internet

  • YEAh and because a woman gave birth to that man, it's women's fault.!!1

    Logic is good.

    ? what do you even mean?

  • 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.

    you,'re right, it's not okay. But that can be something genuinely difficult to overcome. And it wouldnt be right to blame them the same way we blame bigots who never experienced anything similar.

  • 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.

    Problems is also that you can’t help people that don’t want to be helped. Since accepting help means for these young men that they have to accept that they themselves are partially to blame for their situation. Yes society has failed them but they have failed themselves as well. They have to own up to their own failures and not just put all the blame on the rest of the world.

    I know some young men that haven’t gone full mgtow manosphere yet. And even at that point it’s hard to help them. When you reach out they basically reject it. You can basically see in their eyes that they rather want to stay in the bubble and gaslight themselves than to accept the truth and get help. It’s much easier to blame everyone else than to take responsibility.

  • 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.

    Why aren't people asking why are there so many television series where male characters are written as idiotic fops (like really low level 2yo stupidity) who, in every episode, need a woman to come along and save the day,year,universe? Or perhaps where a woman helps convert a male character to what they want the man to be?

    It's all just selling to the idea of feminism and those idiots lap it up whilst men have to keep quiet about their lampooning. And now, these women are Pikachu face over a small backlash against it all?

  • 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 systemic forms of discrimination do not exist in your opinion? your wording seems to imply that there is no actual discrimination/bigotry happening.
    If that's what you believe we have no basis to discuss on. We have a different perception of reality.

    It's silly to just claim your community to be inclusive and then invalidate anyone's experience who feels differently

  • you,'re right, it's not okay. But that can be something genuinely difficult to overcome. And it wouldnt be right to blame them the same way we blame bigots who never experienced anything similar.

    Those bigots surely will have experienced lots of similar things (like everyone else) making them not bigots. Maybe the person projecting hatred onto this 'bigot' lives in such an isolated world. Inclusivity would help them understand here.

  • so systemic forms of discrimination do not exist in your opinion? your wording seems to imply that there is no actual discrimination/bigotry happening.
    If that's what you believe we have no basis to discuss on. We have a different perception of reality.

    It's silly to just claim your community to be inclusive and then invalidate anyone's experience who feels differently

    People can disagree with each other but still respect each other.

    It’s silly to just claim your community to be inclusive and then invalidate anyone’s experience who feels differently

    You mean like the women criticising the "manosphere" because they feel differently?

  • 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.

    This right here. But no one wants to do that because it's easier to create groups based on existing hatred rather than inclusivity and the people who run such communities do it for the power, not the cause.

    The less time we talk about exclusive characteristics to isolate people, the more time we as humans can spend together. But it's easier to market to and capitalise on smaller groups of excluded people rather than one large mass.

  • Those bigots surely will have experienced lots of similar things (like everyone else) making them not bigots. Maybe the person projecting hatred onto this 'bigot' lives in such an isolated world. Inclusivity would help them understand here.

    Inclusivity would help them understand here.

    I agree! My point is this: People choose to self-seggregate because of their, in many cases, valid experiences of discrimination. That's how it is and it is okay.
    And instead of blaming them for "isolating" themselves, we should instead strive to create environments where these people feel welcome to be a part of. We cannot do that by invalidating the experiences they have.

  • People can disagree with each other but still respect each other.

    It’s silly to just claim your community to be inclusive and then invalidate anyone’s experience who feels differently

    You mean like the women criticising the "manosphere" because they feel differently?

    what do you mean by "criticising the manosphere"?

  • FD Signifier and Noah Samsem are "masculine influencers" too, this is too broad of a definition when there's a lot of dudes doing it in a healthy way too.

    Hasan Piker as well

  • 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....

    The extreme depression and anxiety exhibited by women in the 1950s contradicts your claim.

  • Google Keeps Making Smartphones Worse

    Technology technology
    70
    1
    368 Stimmen
    70 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    T
    I could be completely wrong as it's outside of my areas of competency, but my understanding is that the functionality was harder to achieve because of some technical reason due in part to Google/Alphabet fuckery. So another day ending in "y".
  • Men are opening up about mental health to AI instead of humans

    Technology technology
    339
    524 Stimmen
    339 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    spankmonkey@lemmy.worldS
    I'm aware of what you are saying and disagree. You apparently take disagreement personally as most of your comments in that post to various other users are hostile too. Please be aware of how you are approaching discourse.
  • Could Windows and installed apps upload all my personal files?

    Technology technology
    2
    1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    rikudou@lemmings.worldR
    Yes, every application has access to everything. The only exception are those weird apps that use the universal framework or whatever that thing is called, those need to ask for permissions. But most of the apps on your PC have full access to everything. And Windows does collect and upload a lot of personal information and they could easily upload everything on your system. The same of course applies for the apps as well, they have access to everything except privileged folders (those usually don't contain your personal data, but system files).
  • 103 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    113 Aufrufe
    T
    Nobody is ignoring these imperial invasions, genocides, etc. USA is actively supporting them.
  • 123 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    60 Aufrufe
    D
    Clear copyright over reach. News titles or tiny excerpts should not copyrightable - that's just idiotic. If thag stops readers from reading your article then it was never good enough to begin with.
  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    94 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    62 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • 272 Stimmen
    80 Beiträge
    365 Aufrufe
    S
    that sub seems to be fully brigaded by bots from marketing team of closed-ai and preplexity
  • 186 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    68 Aufrufe
    N
    Part of the reason for my use of "might".