Skip to content

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

Technology
289 98 0
  • 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.

    Explain how you can cancel a comment ?

  • 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.

    But, whats the difference from a male that also wants to get to the same position, and is also not entrusted with the thing of importance? I see plenty of this scenarios play on a daily basis by males who want to get on top but are blocked by fellow males. Its the same situation, why would we need to provide help for the women but not for the men? Would you say that properly competent person would overcome this issue, regardless of their gender?

  • 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.

    What conversation though? The guys that lap this up dont even have conversations with women and feminists to begin with, which is why they can be manipulated to accept such a slanted view of their arguments - they have no point of reference. Akin to how people with no Muslim friends or colleagues in their lives are more easily misled to believe fearmongering and misinformation spread about them.
    I think you touched on the real root of the problem: influencers and social media funneling people into echo chambers.

    I get that both sides sometimes talk past one another, but in my experience the young guys I talk to (via gaming mostly) have never spoken to a feminist or read a lick of literature and when bored online have just sought out a voice that tells them they are the good guy, or shits on a demographic that's not them. Those voices usually start in the 'feminist fails #38' style YouTube videos (cut and edited to misrepresent of course).. then the Stephen Crowders.. and the Andrew Tates. The pipeline to the manosphere / red pill scumbags, or worse incels or blackpill.

    These guys existing and their views increasing is not necessarily a symptom that feminists are messaging incorrectly or that academics need to use different words to explain systemic issues - IMO they're just another wonderful side effect of the "eyeballs = money, damn the content" algorithm preferences on social media, coupled with a very accepting attitude towards mysogyny and redpill content in Facebook, YouTube and other major social media content curation teams. All you have to do is look at who they censure and ban and who they don't (and who they unban), and who they promote. Go use a fresh install of one of these platforms on a new device to see what their algorithm promotes in the main feed to a fresh new user. The angry rich white guy influencers get peppered in amongst the Mr Beast and music videos from the first couple of pages, so it's no wonder more guys are exposed to this bullshit.

    I tell the guys I've spoken with that those 'entertainers' are poison, chipping away at their empathy and compassion and pushing them to more isolation and fear - and that they need to be critical of what the influencers claim, and show curiosity for the community around them and engage with it rather than accept the simplistic charade. I've converted a few but its an uphill battle and that conversation takes months. The article points out that this is an issue that needs to be addressed - not that 'boys need to be fixed'.. but that the rise of this manosphere is damaging to all - men and women, and should be addressed systemically. Be that by parents paying closer attention to their kids content consuming habits, regulation for social media giants, laws against those who encourage sexual assault or violence, enshrining rights and protections more clearly into law, and so on - multi-pronged. The trouble is, a huge amount of guys commenting on this very article didn't bother to read it and went straight to the usual talking points. I don't think that's you, but I think you can see the comments I mean.

  • Surrounded by incels, I guess. Mad they aren’t special anymore.

    “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” – Franklin Leonard

    No one even brought up sex or dating. The logical jump to incels here is baffling.

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

    True, if we are talking as if today was 1950 and the socioeconomic situation were the same. But it's not. There's almost 80 years of progress and the socioeconomic situation is not even comparable. So, although true it was a problem 80 years ago, its a bit shortsigthed to claim same applies today.

  • 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.

    Or you start being a 'man' or rather human, and create the life that you want.

    If you see yourself as human resource, you are not worth more than that commodity and that value is all you have. Instead, meet other people and start creating.

  • Men huh, Finland is a feminist govt that has a male-only draft.
    Oh & EU is feminist led
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtXnRwT8K9A

    Feminists & women are pandered to by those men. Those men are kinda like you. Of course some like you is going to victim blame men.
    Another example is the white feather movement

    Really? Finland had the far-right Finns party in coalition in the last few years.

  • ? what do you even mean?

    I mean it's just as nonsensical as claiming that most bullshit is done by men, women are just as capable.

    So what do you mean, what do you even mean?

  • Really? Finland had the far-right Finns party in coalition in the last few years.

    Can I ask a question ? Why do you assume that feminists were ever pro-left ??
    Seriously

  • I mean it's just as nonsensical as claiming that most bullshit is done by men, women are just as capable.

    So what do you mean, what do you even mean?

    it's just as nonsensical as claiming that most bullshit is done by men

    no, it is factual? the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men.

  • 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.

    Really, there is no formal system of patriarchy? No kings in your world?

    The Catholic church still to this day refuses to ordain any women into the priesthood: men only.

    Ask a girl in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia if there's any formal patriarchy when they try to go to school, or drive, or go outside without head to toe covering, or simply go outside unaccompanied by a man.

    In the west there are hundreds of industry bodies, clubs and business societies that wield enormous power and are exclusively men-only - or were men-only until the Civil Rights Act and were then taken to court to have their rules banning women overturned, or pressured for many decades to change their stance, such as the Garrick Club in the UK whom only finally opened their doors to female members last year.

    I'm a man but I'm starting to hate men too with these replies.

  • 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

    FYI, the manosphere is replete with non-white males, and that is not even including the inherent male chauvinism in other cultures. I’m sorry but the critique on whiteness is a little lazy intellectually.

  • 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.

    Very well said. I wish I could articulate this as well as you have here.

  • Really, there is no formal system of patriarchy? No kings in your world?

    The Catholic church still to this day refuses to ordain any women into the priesthood: men only.

    Ask a girl in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia if there's any formal patriarchy when they try to go to school, or drive, or go outside without head to toe covering, or simply go outside unaccompanied by a man.

    In the west there are hundreds of industry bodies, clubs and business societies that wield enormous power and are exclusively men-only - or were men-only until the Civil Rights Act and were then taken to court to have their rules banning women overturned, or pressured for many decades to change their stance, such as the Garrick Club in the UK whom only finally opened their doors to female members last year.

    I'm a man but I'm starting to hate men too with these replies.

    Oh dear.

    The Catholic church still to this day refuses to ordain any women into the priesthood: men only.

    Not my world, but so what? There are also the Roman Catholic Women Priests who felt left out so made up their own story.

    Ask a girl in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia if there’s any formal patriarchy when they try to go to school, or drive, or go outside without head to toe covering, or simply go outside unaccompanied by a man.

    Again, not my world. But... Have you asked if they want to go to school, drive, go outside, or have you assumed they do? Not being a dick but there are very different opinions generally held by women of different cultures and religions that contrast with others - who's right? (Historically people die over such issues). Also, beyond what Fox news states, there are schools in middle Eastern countries, some are voluntary. Such issues are very complicated and are not black or white.

    In the west there are hundreds of industry bodies, clubs and business societies blah blah blah.

    So? "The Garrick Club is a private members' club in London, founded in 1831 as a club for "actors and men of refinement to meet on equal terms" - you're whining that a men-only club is not ok, but a women-only club is?

    A string of strawman arguments. I think you think your opinions make you look cool though. But it's ok, hate me for my opinions because you can only accept those that are marketed to you.

  • 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.

    I guess you think also men are equally good at giving birth and breastfeeding?

    No I think you're better at putting words in my mouth than I am -- allegedly -- at putting words in yours. Speak about going to extremes to attempt to prove a point.

  • Women have strong support movement on their side. It's not something they gain only through their sex, but rather something they gain I think mostly due to the same gender stereotypes that also act against them.

    That seems like a self inflicted issue.... What are women supposed to do about this? In my life it has usually been women begging their husbands to speak to them or to go to therapy.

    Same stereotypes which isolate men and make them suffer in silence and alone, making showing any sign of weakness a fatal mistake.

    And who propogates and sustains this stereotype? Sounds like you should be mad at men.

    honestly don't see your point here - what commenter above you said is right, and sure as hell they didn't mention that it doesn't work the other way around.

    That would imply it's not simply a mens problem.....

    What are men problems, huh? Like, dunno, expectation to always go after that false masculinity. Also, as far as I understand it, what you quoted above this part is just continuation of the point above it, nothing to add here.

    The person I responded to was saying women were being targeted by capitalistic marketing..... How is that a mens problem. My point is that it's not a mens problem it's a capitalist problem.

    Yeah, but affects genders differently. Men are eaten, ground to a paste and then spat out. Women are bellitled and their work is seen as substandard. One side doesn't make the other any less, both are problems and commenter above you didn't say men have it worse, just that they suffer from it.

    Lol, so it's a class problem.... Of course the poor suffer, that's why we're supposed to have class solidarity, not become misogynistic.

    Men do not get help. We do not have the same societal networks that women have to get together and stand up. And even if women decided to fight for us, it's for naught until we are able to start getting up by ourselves.

    That doesn't explain the blatant misogyny in this thread and in the youth in general.

    kay. What's with that obsession with women? Commenter above you mentioned once that feminism can use men to portray them as evil, which they do because guess who makes them suffer most, and yet due to that you immediately went and threw everything they said as if they did nothing else but accuse women of men's suffering.

    This whole thread and post is about the gender dynamic and the blooming network of misogyny. And because his interpretation of economics is devoid of class consciousness, he and you only focus on the problems of young men, which is a demographic and not a class.

    Women gain on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.

    • Corporations gain on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.
    • Rich gain, and even if not then loose nothing on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.

    How do women gain?
    Who runs the corporations?

    , the incentive is for us to move our asses, take notes from women and build our own support networks. But that is actually fought against by conservatists/right-wingers, because lonely and lost men make cheap and easily influenced canon fodder.

    Who do you think runs the fucking world already...its us, men.

    So obviously nwe don't need much support that is just based on gender. Of the people doing well right now...it's mostly men.

    What separates us and the people who run the world isn't gender..its class. You can't build a supportive class network and only focus on young men.

    Who do you think runs the fucking world already...its us, men.

    I hope you realize how alienating a sentence like this is, for someone who is as stomped by society as many women are.

    This narrative is exactly what prevents any form of class solidarity, and I really can't understand how someone can write it in the same comment where class struggle is raised.

  • Every once in a while my uni has some interesting events (at least based on the description), public announcement sent to everyone, and the last sentence has almost always been some form of "women only". There is usually no gender neutral equivalents to these events and they're done in the name of gener equality. So I very much feel excluded by gender equality.

    Oh no, a place you couldn't go as a man?!?!? How could you ever survive?!?

  • Very well said. I wish I could articulate this as well as you have here.

    thank you!

  • Fuck the gender division, let's all be misanthropes together.

  • 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

    Are you saying non white people don't know how to use the internet, I'm confused

  • Hacker Tactic: ESD Diodes

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    24 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • No, Social Media is Not Porn

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    21 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Z
    This feels dystopian and like overreach. But that said, there definitely is some porn on the 4 platforms they cited. It's an excuse sure, but let's also not deny reality.
  • 259 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    L
    Maybe you're right: is there verification? Neither content policy (youtube or tiktok) clearly lays out rules on those words. I only find unverified claims: some write it started at YouTube, others claim TikTok. They claim YouTube demonetizes & TikTok shadowbans. They generally agree content restrictions by these platforms led to the propagation of circumspect shit like unalive & SA. TikTok policy outlines their moderation methods, which include removal and ineligibility to the for you feed. Given their policy on self-harm & automated removal of potential violations, their policy is to effectively & recklessly censor such language. Generally, censorship is suppression of expression. Censorship doesn't exclusively mean content removal, though they're doing that, too. (Digression: revisionism & whitewashing are forms of censorship.) Regardless of how they censor or induce self-censorship, they're chilling inoffensive language pointlessly. While as private entities they are free to moderate as they please, it's unnecessary & the effect is an obnoxious affront on self-expression that's contorting language for the sake of avoiding idiotic restrictions.
  • 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.
  • lemm.ee is shutting down at the end of this month

    Technology technology
    130
    625 Stimmen
    130 Beiträge
    36 Aufrufe
    vopyr@lemmy.worldV
    If I know correctly, it is not possible to export posts, comments, replies.
  • 6 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    T
    Oh I agree. I just think is part of the equation perhaps the thinner and lighter will enable for better processor? Not an AR guy , although I lived my oculus until FB got hold of it. Didn't use it ever again after that day.
  • 18 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    M
    Business Insider was founded in 2007.
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.comA
    The enshittification continues, but it doesn't affect me at all. Piracy is the way to go nowadays that all streaming services suck. !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com