Skip to content

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

Technology
341 111 0
  • 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.

    Was with you until that last bit. I'm not opposed to democratic reforms or testing socialist ideas piecemeal. But massive restructurings of society towards utopia have.... a history....

    [Hint: lots of people die]

  • 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.

    I haven't heard men say shit this stupid my whole life. This isn't 'tradition' it's a growing hate movement.

  • 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.

    Yes. Correct. But talk to a boy in Jr. High. They aren't as smart about this as you might hope.

  • Honestly, as a women, so it's not my opinion that matters, but even that meme/joke/trend that "men are simple creatures", "keep your belly fully and balls empty and we're happy" ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?

    The men in my life are just as complicated and multifaceted as anyone else. These kinds of jokes, or online rhetoric, to me, feel like y'all are calling men simple and dumb.

    The men in my life are not simple or dumb.

    “men are simple creatures”, “keep your belly fully and balls empty and we’re happy” ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?

    Personally, not inherently, no. And definitely not in context, context here being the existence of "men are primitive" and "men only want one thing and it's disgusting". Is it reductive, yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

    Catch some fish, chop some wood, smoke the critters, unclog the sink so that stubbles will actually flush instead of cling to the rim, annoying the wife (for incomprehensible reasons, but a well-functioning drain is its own reward), be a rollercoaster for the kids, kick back on the sofa, get your balls emptied, if that's not a satisfying day then you have issues.

    Complexity is not a good in itself. Be only as complex as is necessary to stay simple.

  • 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.

    Succeed at capitalism? That’s a fool’s errand

    I did it. Lots of people I know did it. The main trick is cutting toxic people out of your life, moving to a better place, and making new friends who are also dedicated to succeeding.

  • “men are simple creatures”, “keep your belly fully and balls empty and we’re happy” ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?

    Personally, not inherently, no. And definitely not in context, context here being the existence of "men are primitive" and "men only want one thing and it's disgusting". Is it reductive, yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

    Catch some fish, chop some wood, smoke the critters, unclog the sink so that stubbles will actually flush instead of cling to the rim, annoying the wife (for incomprehensible reasons, but a well-functioning drain is its own reward), be a rollercoaster for the kids, kick back on the sofa, get your balls emptied, if that's not a satisfying day then you have issues.

    Complexity is not a good in itself. Be only as complex as is necessary to stay simple.

    But as you describe, is that every man?

    Certainly not.

    I'm mom and I'm the rollercoaster, the house repair gal, and I have a higher drive than my husband, though I would never describe our booty time as, "getting my balls emptied" or some female equivalent. It's more like, activity time with my best friend, alas,

    You just sterotyped an entire cohort of people in your description, I hope you understand that.

    I refuse to sterotype my fellow women. I know women, we are all different, and I myself, don't hit many of the sterotypical markers.

    You describe your version of the every man's day here, then say any man who lives differently has issues, because that day isn't satisfying for them. Is that kind towards your fellow men you think?

  • Was with you until that last bit. I'm not opposed to democratic reforms or testing socialist ideas piecemeal. But massive restructurings of society towards utopia have.... a history....

    [Hint: lots of people die]

    Lots of people die in the United States as it is. Homelessness is rising drastically. How long until you're next to be put out onto the street? Your employer can't wait until they can automate your job and fire you.

    Also, the United States has a long history of carrying out genocide even prior to Gaza. Odd given your fallacious implication that capitalism is peaceful

  • Someone watches his shit.

    Just because the youtube algorithm promotes outrage doesn't make it right.

  • But as you describe, is that every man?

    Certainly not.

    I'm mom and I'm the rollercoaster, the house repair gal, and I have a higher drive than my husband, though I would never describe our booty time as, "getting my balls emptied" or some female equivalent. It's more like, activity time with my best friend, alas,

    You just sterotyped an entire cohort of people in your description, I hope you understand that.

    I refuse to sterotype my fellow women. I know women, we are all different, and I myself, don't hit many of the sterotypical markers.

    You describe your version of the every man's day here, then say any man who lives differently has issues, because that day isn't satisfying for them. Is that kind towards your fellow men you think?

    You are completely overthinking it. I readily acknowledged it is reductive. And my example was an example, a vibe. I do not, in fact, fish. Nor consider desert dwellers to be less masculine or something.

    A typical male experience in a hetero relationship is that women are overly fussy over many things, I think most of it is culture (a generalised fear of a catty mother in law not considering you good enough for her son causing a fear of losing your partner because he might listen to her instead of you) so when we hear "men are simple" we don't hear "men are stupid" but "finally, someone who understands the pointlessness of having seasonal napkins". If you wanted to say "men are stupid" you'd have said "men are primitive", it's not hard to tell apart. We do, in fact, have social and contextual awareness, I freely admit that we use obliviousness as a conscious strategy.

    Are there men who are totally into decorative towels? Sure, but if we hedge everything with "but not everyone does that", "of course, all people are unique and different" then communication becomes a chore. It's like hearing "sunscreen is important" and insisting "of course, if it's winter that's a different issue, we wouldn't want to essentialise weather to be carcinogenic". Come on.

    And our interaction here, ironically, falls into a similar pattern. "No, really, it's fine that we don't have decorative towels" -- "There must be a deeper meaning behind this, a social force, someone pulling his strings, why would anyone not want to have complex things like decorative towels, what is the meaning of this, am I on top of the situation"... no. He meant what he said, exactly that, and nothing more: My hands are dry, the towels didn't make them dirty again, that's all I need from a towel. I want my pants to have pockets so I buy them with pockets instead of worrying whether they ruin the silhouette and agonising over compromises. There's a lot of freedom in simplicity. That inner mother in law, though? Of course everything is complicated, how else would she be able to drive you crazy.

    I've got a song for you.

  • Well, after your 2nd post with the same thing I thought this is how you wanna communicate.

    Let's try this again: If, as you say "women do empathy, men do resilience", then why should childcare be 70:30? Why not 50:50 so the kids get taught empathy and resilience in equal measure? Also, how can you even be empathetic if you lack in the resilience department.

  • 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.

    Serious question, and I'm not trying to troll here. Do you tell this same piece of advice to your female friends about more radical feminist content creators?

    I haven't seen any radical female content creators personally, and there certainly doesn't seem to be a large industry of them forming. If there is they're very well hidden and poorly advertised.

    But if that happens I'd absolutely be for talking people away from listening to them.

  • Why are they called unwomen?

    Edit: ffs. I need to get off the phone and drink my coffee. United Nations Women. Third shift is killing me.

    "Unwomen" rings a bell for me.

    I looked it up, and in Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid 's Tale, Unwomen were infertile women sent to clean up toxic waste in the colonies.

    😞

  • I'm banging on about it? You highlighted it from my list and came up with the false narrative that I am somehow OK with womens-only clubs, something I've never claimed (that's a strawman FYI).

    You're not interested to learn, nor to have an honest debate. Good luck with that attitude, you'll need it.

    Women and men-only clubs have a lot of value. We have women only clubs at work because our industry is pretty male-centric, so getting women access to good female mentors is super important because they're distributed across the company. Men can be good mentors for women too, sure, but anytime there's a minority, it's important to connect them to help them recognize and point out implicit biases. We have groups like that for racial minorities as well, and I think it's great.

    Men and women also bond differently, so having a gender-specific club can lower barriers to connecting and finding support. That's true for other characteristics as well, like sexual and gender identity, race (I'm a huge fan of our black chamber of commerce in our predominantly white area), age, etc.

    We should embrace and celebrate our differences, not try to hide them away. Let everyone have their own club, and maintain rules against intolerance as well.

  • Men are often failed, that's totally true. They're also harmed by patriarchy eg being told to "man up" leading to them not seeing a doctor, work on themselves etc.

    Ive read up on this and I'm a DA outreach worker so I have experience. A common theme with the Manosphere is blame shifting, and refusing to take action on their issues. Their mindset is wrong, and they don't help themselves.

    Not false at all but a big part imo is also learned, it's like if I have 10 problems, 5 of which are totally my fault, and the only one talking about the other 5 says "ALL your problems are not your fault."

    It's like one person actually fully reflected their experiences back to them, but then peddled a ton of lies along with it.

  • 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.

    Oh, finally. The sexless/incels is a tiny part of the manosphere. We see them because we want to. You don't need to respect women in order to get affection, you need it to build love and trust

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

    there was also tons of jews who supported hitler. The 'manosphere' pretends to be inclusive to men when its just a white nationalist spin off.

    "see we have some black supporters! dont mind what we have planned for them after we take-over please! grrr! those pesky woman wont let us get laid! focus on that not the swastika in the background!"

  • Succeed at capitalism? That’s a fool’s errand

    I did it. Lots of people I know did it. The main trick is cutting toxic people out of your life, moving to a better place, and making new friends who are also dedicated to succeeding.

    Tell that to a child slave in a cobalt mine.

    Being "dedicated to succeeding" is a one-way ticket to burnout.

  • Was with you until that last bit. I'm not opposed to democratic reforms or testing socialist ideas piecemeal. But massive restructurings of society towards utopia have.... a history....

    [Hint: lots of people die]

    Not necessarily. Lots of people haven't died in Rojava or in the areas of Southern Mexico controlled by the Zapatistas. Authoritarianism was the problem with restructurings you allude to, not socialism.

  • We have failed our men.

    These are the type of feminists the world needs.

    I have commented stuff like this before, and gotten it deleted (or gotten summarily banned). I have been searching for spaces where this sort of discourse is even allowed, where non-vagina-havers get to say that many men suck but it's not only their fault and they certainly can't fix it in a vacuum.

  • 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.

    Right, listen to that manosophere and you can commit some R or SA ... Is that what you mean by "get laid"?

  • 371 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    hollownaught@lemmy.worldH
    Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives They're better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is That is to say, I'm assuming that's what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It's the first thing I thought of when I heard "cancer in bloodstream", as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak Edit: they're talking about cancer "shedding genetic material", which I hate how general they're being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    14 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.
  • 386 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    C
    Melon Usk doomed their FSD efforts from the start with his dunning-kruger-brain take of "humans drive just using their eyes, so cars shouldn't need any sensors besides cameras." Considering how many excellent engineers there are (or were, at least) at his companies, it's kind of fascinating how "stupid at the top" is just as bad, if not worse, than "stupid all the way down."
  • 99 Stimmen
    48 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    Y
    enable the absolute worst of what humanity has to offer. can we call it a reality check? we think of humans as so great and important and unique for quite a while now while the world is spiraling downwards. maybe humans arent so great after all. like what is art? ppl vibe with slob music but birds cant vote. how does that make sense? if one can watch AI slob (and we all will with the constant improvements in ai) and like it, well maybe our taste of art is not any better than what a bird can do and like. i hope LLM will lead to a breakthrough in understanding what type of animal we really are.
  • 13 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    T
    You might enjoy this blog post someone linked in another thread earlier today https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/
  • 2 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    quarterswede@lemmy.worldQ
    I give it 5 years before this is on our phones.
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    thehatfox@lemmy.worldT
    The platform owners don’t consider engagement to me be participation in meaningful discourse. Engagement to them just means staying on the platform while seeing ads. If bots keep people doing that those platforms will keep letting them in.
  • *deleted by creator*

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet