Skip to content

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

Technology
351 111 5.7k
  • 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.

  • 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?

    In my experience the problem isn't the masculinity influencers. Those are just the symptom of misandry in media and a near-total lack of support in society for men, especially young men. 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".

    All this pressure is an impossible equation to solve for a young man who has been pushed by misandrists into insecurity and longs to be accepted in his community. Not just because society's demands are internally inconsistent, but because they clash with patriarchal ideals among the typical women you'll meet IRL.

    I'm past 40 and while in my head I still consider myself progressive, I used to show it much more when I was younger. I was honest about my insecurities, I would try not to take up too much space as a man, would try to split responsibilities equally, and so on. At every turn this has caused me problems in relationships, not least with my wife of 10 years who left me for some muscular macho guy because she "doesn't feel like I can take care of her".

    So now, while I wish society was different, I try to balance on the needle of acting like I'm not as progressive as I am so women don't "get the ick", while not tripping into what would be labeled misogyny. It's an extremely difficult game to play and it frustrates me to no end that this is where we're at. I'm moving in soon with a woman who I've been dating for a couple of years and it's clear that she desires that I take a leadership position in the home, whereas I'm just longing for a partner who will share the burden with me instead of becoming my subject. But I feel like I have to play that game or she'll eventually lose interest. Too many women want someone to replace their dad.

    Bell Hooks wrote about this already in 2003. But somehow it is completely lost on these UN Women pundits that nothing will change unless everybody (including women) change. You can't just blame it on "masculinity influencers". Why are these influencers gaining popularity? Because they offer some way out, some positive message for young men who are completely starved for positive role models.

    I am convinced that a woman's voice will count 10x more than the manosphere, if it offers compassion and guidance rather than hate. But such voices are extremely rare.

    FWIW, the "men's health awareness month" has brought me some hope in this. It's the first time in a decade that I've seen women in media stand up to defend and show compassion for men, and I think young men will suck that up like a sponge.

  • 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...

    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.

  • 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.

    I like how you were down voted for it. Hell there's a free online course in my country right know that is not open for everyone, it says in the description that anyone can apply for a chance but only women will be allowed to participate.

  • The overlooked global risk of the AI precariat

    Technology technology
    3
    5 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    cecilkorik@lemmy.caC
    It is explicitly intended to be, you only have to listen to them talk about it for that to be abundantly clear. Fuck, even ask an AI themselves and they'll tell you about the dangers of how it's being used. The only people saying it's not are the utopian dreamers who are expecting it to be something it's currently not and likely has no hope of ever being. This is not a utopia and the people creating these technologies are not utopians in the slightest, they are mercenary capitalists and they will instantly grind you into a paste without even a shred of remorse or even an acknowledgement that they've done so, if it helps them get their next dollar. Some of them only think about you in the abstract. Most of them don't think of you at all.
  • 22 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    F
    You know what actually works for this? A physical slider like my second smartphone had which switches between silent, vibrate and loud. That was the only time I actually switched away from vibrate because it was easy, and I could do it in my pocket without looking at the phone (especially nice in situations where looking at it might itself be rude)
  • 722 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    231 Aufrufe
    S
    All the research I am aware of - including what I referenced in the previous comment, is that people are honest by default, except for a few people who lie a lot. Boris Johnson is a serial liar and clearly falls into that camp. I believe that you believe that, but a couple of surveys are not a sufficient argument to prove the fundamental good of all humanity. If honesty were not the default, why would we believe what anyone has to say in situations where they have an incentive to lie, which is often? Why are such a small proportion of people criminals and fraudsters when for a lot of crimes, someone smart and cautious has a very low chance of being caught? I think this is just a lack of imagination. i will go through your scenarios and provide an answer but i don't think it's going to achieve anything, we just fundamentally disagree on this. why would we believe what anyone has to say in situations where they have an incentive to lie, which is often? You shouldn't. edit : You use experience with this person or in general, to make a judgement call about whether or not you want to listen to what they have to say until more data is available. You continue to refine based on accumulated experience. Why are such a small proportion of people criminals and fraudsters when for a lot of crimes, someone smart and cautious has a very low chance of being caught? A lot of assumptions and leaps here. Firstly crime implies actual law, which is different in different places, so let's assume for now we are talking about the current laws in the uk. Criminals implies someone who has been caught and prosecuted for breaking a law, I'm going with that assumption because "everyone who has ever broken a law" is a ridiculous interpretation. So to encompass the assumptions: Why are such a small proportion of people who have been caught and prosecuted for breaking the law in the uk, when someone smart and caution has a very low chance of being caught? I hope you can see how nonsensical that question is. The evolutionary argument goes like this: social animals have selection pressure for traits that help the social group, because the social group contains related individuals, as well as carrying memetically inheritable behaviours. This means that the most successful groups are the ones that work well together. A group first of all has an incentive to punish individuals who act selfishly to harm the group - this will mean the group contains mostly individuals who, through self interest, will not betray the group. But a group which doesn’t have to spend energy finding and punishing traitorous individuals because it doesn’t contain as many in the first place will do even better. This creates a selection pressure behind mere self interest. That's a nicely worded very bias interpretation. social animals have selection pressure for traits that help the social group, because the social group contains related individuals, as well as carrying memetically inheritable behaviours. This is fine. This means that the most successful groups are the ones that work well together. That's a jump, working well together might not be the desirable trait in this instance. But let's assume it is for now. A group first of all has an incentive to punish individuals who act selfishly to harm the group - this will mean the group contains mostly individuals who, through self interest, will not betray the group. Reductive and assumptive, you're also conflating selfishness with betrayal, you can have on without the other, depending on perceived definitions of course. But a group which doesn’t have to spend energy finding and punishing traitorous individuals because it doesn’t contain as many in the first place will do even better. This creates a selection pressure behind mere self interest. Additional reduction and a further unsupported jump, individuals are more than just a single trait, selfishness might be desirable in certain scenarios or it might be a part of an individual who's other traits make up for it in a tribal context. The process of seeking and the focused attention might be a preferential selection trait that benefits the group. Powerful grifters try to protect themselves yes, but who got punished for pointing out that Boris is a serial liar? Everyone who has been negatively impacted by the policies enacted and consequences of everything that was achieved on the back of those lies. Because being ignored is still a punishment if there are negative consequences. But let's pick a more active punishment, protesting. Protest in a way we don't like or about a subject we don't approve of, it's now illegal to protest unless we give permission. That's reductive, but indicative of what happened in broad strokes. Have you read what the current government has said about the previous one? I'd imagine something along the lines of what the previous government said about the one before ? As a society we generally hate that kind of behaviour. Society as a whole does not protect wealth and power; wealth and power forms its own group which tries to protect itself. Depends on how you define society as a whole. By population, i agree. By actual power to enact change(without extreme measures), less so Convenient that you don't include the wealth and power as part of society, like its some other separate thing. You should care because it entirely colours how you interact with political life. “Shady behaviour” is about intent as well as outcome, and we are talking in this thread about shady behaviour, and hence about intent. See [POINT A]
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Bubble Trouble

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    46 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    149 Aufrufe
    1984@lemmy.today1
    Yeah that would be the logical end game since companies have invested billions into this trend now.
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Let the A.I work or not?

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • No Frills PCB Brings USB-C Power To The Breadboard

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    51 Aufrufe
    coelacanthus@lemmy.kde.socialC
    and even without it, you'll get 150mA @ 5V by default out of the USB 3 host upstream and up to 900mA with some pretty basic USB negotiation in a protocol that dates from USB 1.0 That's wrong. With USB Type-C, you can get the power up to 3A @ 5V with just two 5.1kΩ resistor on CC pins.