Skip to content

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

Technology
351 111 5.7k
  • I mean yes race does intersect, it’s a longer discussion, I guess I’m just tired of this “whiteness” critique because it feels cheap and easy, hence intellectually lazy. Anything that happens in the west politically can be linked back to whiteness one way or another. I don’t think it’s been particularly helpful as a critique, in fact I think it has backfired and probably needs to go.

    I think backfiring would be the wrong phrasing, Caucasian people after all statistically get the best outcome in pretty much every demographic of life IIRC.

    For instance i remember as a youngster feeling like life was tough in the USA--until i visited Africa. I don't think its right though to for instance blame current people from England for the occupation of say, India, but I also don't think right for them to claim their country hasn't somehow benefited from it and through that, they themselves.

    I am optimistic about the future though. I am biracial and I feel as mobility/travel/the acceptance of others has grown eventually we will all be one--and yes I realize how sappy that is.

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

    That has nothing to do with my remark. The far-right is anti-feminist.

    As to you question, there are many different strands of feminism and Marxist feminism, anarcha-feminism, intersectional feminism, queer feminism etc. are very much pro-left.

  • 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.

    The 1950s was when women were relegated to the role of housewife. You are asking why women don't want to be relegated to that role.

  • 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.

    Sounds like they need the shit slapped out of them.

    Maybe they should just take the advice that we've been giving to women and minorities for the last 100 years and tell them that if they want to succeed they should just fucking work harder at it.

    If a dam is leaking, smacking it and tell it to be more 'dam-like' will only break the dam eventually. For the people drowning, "the dam should have held, because that's what dams do"

    For people who want to improve our world, the goal needs to be defined as reducing gender conflict by increasing mutual gender respect. These words you've shared do not invite respect, but conflict. It is a phrase of someone who does not offer support, but demands submission.

    Now it's easy to reply "yes, I am demanding that men to stop killing women, and if that's "submission", so be it". It's of course a correct position.

    But it would not be what you said. And there are a thousand ways to twist that phrase to deepen the conflict, out of context, or even subverting that context. And the conflict then only depends.

    Resentment is a knife. It's a tool of division, not unity. We should not use it to divide people by gender.

  • To paraphrase Jon Lovett, they have "back of the classroom energy" while the left has "front of the classroom energy".

    "Teacher teacher, he said something some people might find offensive! Send him to the principal's office"

    "Thanks for narcing me out, r****d"

    "Teacher teacher, he just said the r-word!"

    The left just isn't equipped to deal with the manosphere. Everything the left does just makes the manosphere seem even more cool to the kids.

    "The UN is worried about these guys, they must be really badass!"

    Wat?

    The manosphere is literally a bunch of losers that can't get laid and are making excuses for it.

    Work out. Have a career. Don't be a asshole. Do that and you can get laid but that's too hard for some folks.

  • Wat?

    The manosphere is literally a bunch of losers that can't get laid and are making excuses for it.

    Work out. Have a career. Don't be a asshole. Do that and you can get laid but that's too hard for some folks.

    They're groomed from a young age by the manosphere to be losers that can't get laid, so they'll continuously buy self-help books from the manosphere.

    They still vote though. And this all happens because to a teenager, the manosphere are the cool guys making fun of the whiny nerds.

  • The 1950s was when women were relegated to the role of housewife. You are asking why women don't want to be relegated to that role.

    There was nothing wrong with that role then, and there is nothing wrong with the role now. The main difference is that in 1950 women had no choice but to be a housewife, and today women have choices, and when comparing them, being a housewife doesn't look half as bad.

  • 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.

    I can see that parents failed young men and the education system failed young men. But these men aren’t entitled to a woman or a high paying job. And quite frankly they probably aren’t capable of those things or they would be solving their own problems instead of blaming women for them

  • That has nothing to do with my remark. The far-right is anti-feminist.

    As to you question, there are many different strands of feminism and Marxist feminism, anarcha-feminism, intersectional feminism, queer feminism etc. are very much pro-left.

    Sure Finland's female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br>
    https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994

    So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war, TERFs are a thing too & guess what ? The feminists do not oppose the draft. (Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)

  • Sure Finland's female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br>
    https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994

    So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war, TERFs are a thing too & guess what ? The feminists do not oppose the draft. (Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)

    "2Sure Finland's female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br> https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994"

    If you see feminism as every time there are women in government, why do you oppose feminism?

    "So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war"

    They're a right-wing austerity government but I'll bite, which war are you talking about?

    "TERFs are a thing too"

    Sure, I never said all feminists are left-wing. There are reactionary strands of feminism (if we accept that they are indeed feminists) such TERFs for example. My point is that feminism is not a monolith and the bulk of it is left-wing.

    "The feminists do not oppose the draft."

    Correction: A country right next to an expansionist dictatorship does not oppose the draft. I'll probably get shouted at buy when you are right next to a country like Russia, the draft is a necessary evil.

    "(Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)"

    Perhaps the draft should be extended to women. In any case, irrelevant to your "point" about feminism.

  • There was nothing wrong with that role then, and there is nothing wrong with the role now. The main difference is that in 1950 women had no choice but to be a housewife, and today women have choices, and when comparing them, being a housewife doesn't look half as bad.

    The lack of income independent from your spouse is a huge argument against being a housewife.

  • I'm literally fucking gaslight by being told I don't have ADHD, told my stomach issues are just because I eat fast, planning is stupid and other incredibly dumb shit. I have to listen to an anti-waxxer father talk shit for over an hour. I had to watch friends sprout sigma shit, called a woman I brought into the server "the huzz", and called me a fucking pussy. Actually, I don't have to deal with your bullshit either.

    I'm literally fucking gaslight by being told I don't have ADHD, told my stomach issues are just because I eat fast, planning is stupid and other incredibly dumb shit. I have to listen to an anti-waxxer father talk shit for over an hour.

    What does that have to do with your gender? These are problems we all go through because our healthcare system is failing because they put profits before people.

    I had to watch friends sprout sigma shit, called a woman I brought into the server "the huzz", and called me a fucking pussy. Actually, I don't have to deal with your bullshit either.

    Sounds like you have shitty sexist friends... Again I fail to see how that has anything to do with misandry. That's toxic masculinity, not misandry. You aren't being targeted because you are male, you are being targeted because your shithole friends don't see you as male enough.

  • I can see that parents failed young men and the education system failed young men. But these men aren’t entitled to a woman or a high paying job. And quite frankly they probably aren’t capable of those things or they would be solving their own problems instead of blaming women for them

    Manosphere men fall pray to the XY problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem?wprov=sfla1.

    They demand the X which is a girlfriend and money in order to solve problem Y which is a lack of social connectedness and decreasing standards of living.

    They believe themselves entitled to X because of that. Actually, everyone (including Manosphere men) is entitled to a solution to Y which affects everyone appart from the bourgois (who still lack social connectedness) but the solution to that is Z which is a wholesale restructuring of our society and economy to one that is maximally democratic and socialist.

  • 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.

    Sounds like they need the shit slapped out of them.

    Maybe they should just take the advice that we've been giving to women and minorities for the last 100 years and tell them that if they want to succeed they should just fucking work harder at it.

    Succeed at capitalism? That's a fool's errand. Better to point them to the real enemy which is the bourgeoisie and the real solution which is for the working class to form democratic organizations aimed at overthrowing the ruling class and form worker led democratic ways of organizing society.

  • They're groomed from a young age by the manosphere to be losers that can't get laid, so they'll continuously buy self-help books from the manosphere.

    They still vote though. And this all happens because to a teenager, the manosphere are the cool guys making fun of the whiny nerds.

    There no way Andrew Tate is cool at a party.

  • There are absolutely jobs where hiring the most qualified person for the job is critical. There are a lot of jobs where the threshold for good enough is far below that, and most companies are at least as concerned at getting the cheapest labor that can fulfill the position as they are at getting the best person (at that lower rate). Adding additional constraints like diversity isn't going to affect those jobs any more than the company's desire to save a buck.

    Hiring someone over someone else purely because of their race or sex is discrimination, racism, and/or sexism.

    It sounds to me like you’re talking about jobs that illegal immigrants do, especially once you brought up cheap labor. Jobs like those don’t have diversity quotas, because they almost entirely hire from the “diversity” pool.

  • There no way Andrew Tate is cool at a party.

    Someone watches his shit.

  • Wat?

    The manosphere is literally a bunch of losers that can't get laid and are making excuses for it.

    Work out. Have a career. Don't be a asshole. Do that and you can get laid but that's too hard for some folks.

    That's kind of the thing, we want to think they're a bunch of sexless losers, but the basic tenets of advice you get from the manosphere will probably get you laid if you follow it. Following manosphere advice works because it's the exact same advice you just laid out but packaged in a more attractive and focused manner. It just happens to be with a side of right wing politics and more than a bit of misogyny.

  • in my experience it was the kids in the front whining "Why come they have a black student union and we dont have a white one waaaaah! i am now a victim! DEI! why is that white girl dating a minority waaaaah!"

    the victim complex is strong with them, like the dark side of the force it seduces them. (nice I got some white boys angry)

    There are tons of young black men in the manosphere, too. Or else with whom manosphere ideas resonate. Don't be racist.

  • 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.

    You are making an excellent point right up until your last paragraph. What 15 year old boy wants to be Mr Fucking Rogers? Sure, maybe they want to be him in like 40 years (but only the version of him who was secretly a marine sniper covered in tattoos everywhere his sweaters hid). What does a 15 year old boy who is vulnerable to the manosphere want? He wants to get paid and get laid.

    Trying to shove a 15 year old's raging hormones and desire for rebellion and independence into a Mr Rogers box will only lead to... more rebellion. Give the kids role models who are good people, who also succeed at things they care about.

  • 722 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    233 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]
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Thingiverse uses AI to block production of ghost guns

    Technology technology
    38
    1
    158 Stimmen
    38 Beiträge
    229 Aufrufe
    T
    Finally someone using new tech tools in a sensible and useful way .
  • Houthi-linked dealers sell arms on X and WhatsApp, report says

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    47 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    36 Aufrufe
    C
    But we need to protect children and get your ID….
  • 623 Stimmen
    73 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    swelter_spark@reddthat.comS
    Swappa is good for tech.
  • 77 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    250 Aufrufe
    G
    Because the trillions is the point.. Not security.
  • I am disappointed in the AI discourse

    Technology technology
    27
    7 Stimmen
    27 Beiträge
    251 Aufrufe
    artocode404@lemmy.dbzer0.comA
    I apologize that apparently Lemmy/Reddit people do not have enough self-awareness to accept good criticism, especially if it was just automatically generated and have downloaded that to oblivion. Though I don't really think you should respond to comments with a chatGPT link, not exactly helpful. Comes off a tad bit AI Bro...