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.

  • Clicks & Companions: Pet Care E-commerce Market Boom

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 14 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 10 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    50 Aufrufe
    T
    "Science" under capitalism has always been funded and developed by/for fascists. The originals in the USA were the founding enslavers. The nazis had their time. Now it's the zios. R&D for genocide as usual.
  • Bumble's AI icebreakers are mainly breaking EU law

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    183 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    204 Aufrufe
    S
    This is just that zizek quote
  • 346 Stimmen
    91 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    E
    It kinda seems like you don’t understand the actual technology.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    2k 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.
  • 477 Stimmen
    81 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    douglasg14b@lemmy.worldD
    Did I say that it did? No? Then why the rhetorical question for something that I never stated? Now that we're past that, I'm not sure if I think it's okay, but I at least recognize that it's normalized within society. And has been for like 70+ years now. The problem happens with how the data is used, and particularly abused. If you walk into my store, you expect that I am monitoring you. You expect that you are on camera and that your shopping patterns, like all foot traffic, are probably being analyzed and aggregated. What you buy is tracked, at least in aggregate, by default really, that's just volume tracking and prediction. Suffice to say that broad customer behavior analysis has been a thing for a couple generations now, at least. When you go to a website, why would you think that it is not keeping track of where you go and what you click on in the same manner? Now that I've stated that I do want to say that the real problems that we experience come in with how this data is misused out of what it's scope should be. And that we should have strong regulatory agencies forcing compliance of how this data is used and enforcing the right to privacy for people that want it removed.
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    36 Aufrufe
    P
    It's a shame. AI has potential but most people just want to exploit its development for their own gain.