Skip to content

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

Technology
74 44 0
  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    Same here. However, I suspect you and I are not zero-sum thinkers, and can conceive of a future in which both men and women can apply themselves to their full potential.

    But it seems like a key part of the counter-movement to gender equality is based on the notion that every time a woman gets a job, they are taking it away from a more qualified man. It seems to be built on a mountain of insecurity more than anything else.

  • 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's the same in female fields, it's not just prestige. Men face increased scrutiny when working with children. Male nurses are expected to perform the more physical parts of the job almost exclusively.

  • 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.

    That may be, but you are not all men ? So some have.

    There have been several cases here in Australia where men have been denied access becase they are men and taken it to court.. and lost, I suspect that's sort of what the person posting is referring to. Theres a carve out in the law to allow womens only spaces.

    Now, whether you agree with the ruling of the courts or not, is to some extent ilrrelevant to the discussion (the courts are notionally after all just following the law) because gender equality then isn't about what's on the tin and that's when you get push back.

  • Musk's X sues New York state over social media hate speech law

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Is Matrix cooked?

    Technology technology
    54
    100 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    W
    Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then. it is mostly for compatibility reasons. no win32 programs are equipped to handle such granular permissions and sandboxing, they are all made with the assumption that they have access to whatever they need (other than other users' resources and things that require elevation). if Microsoft would have made that limitation to every kind of software, that Windows version would have probably been a failure in popularity because lots of software would have broken. I think S editions of windows is how they tried to go in that direction, with a more drastic way of simply just dropping support for 3rd party win32 programs. I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format. ok, so if you run linux or windows utils in a compatibility layer, they still have less of a limited access? by which I mean graphical utilities. just tried with firefox, for macos it wanted to give me an .iso file (???) if so, it seems apple is doing roughly the same as microsoft with uwp and the appx format, and linux with flatpak: it's a choice for the user
  • 392 Stimmen
    65 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Z
    Yes and no. Yes people are this stupid. But also bot networks. But also alt accounts. And many of those stupid people let the algorithm to pick them their political views, which is manipulated by both the bot activity and the platform holders.
  • A ban on state AI laws could smash Big Tech’s legal guardrails

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    121 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    P
    It's always been "states rights" to enrich rulers at the expense of everyone else.
  • The AI girlfriend guy - The Paranoia Of The AI Era

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    6 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 763 Stimmen
    187 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    O
    Not being a coward.
  • 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).
  • 463 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.