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.

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.

So... What exactly is your definition of what should be posted in the technology community?

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.

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.

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

Logic is good.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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....

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.

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.

There are 2 issues here that are being mixed.

One is women not being allowed to positions of power. The other is with women being underrepresented in certain fields (e.g., stem).

I think it's fair to mix them, to an extent, because I think the degree of underrepresentation is often directly proportional to the prestige/pay/power of the field. Both are symptoms of the same underlying issue, which is bigots discounting women's competency and refusing to entrust them with things of importance.