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.
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.
Yes. Correct. But talk to a boy in Jr. High. They aren’t as smart about this as you might hope.
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.
Someone watches his shit.
Just because the youtube algorithm promotes outrage doesn’t make it right.
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.
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.
leading to them not seeing a doctor,
Interesting you should mention this because other than more suicides, this is the #1 reason why the average lifespan of men is less - procrastination of serious symptoms which are initial warning signs that become fatal illnesses.
Yep exactly and men’s health matters
Problems is also that you can’t help people that don’t want to be helped. Since accepting help means for these young men that they have to accept that they themselves are partially to blame for their situation. Yes society has failed them but they have failed themselves as well. They have to own up to their own failures and not just put all the blame on the rest of the world.
I know some young men that haven’t gone full mgtow manosphere yet. And even at that point it’s hard to help them. When you reach out they basically reject it. You can basically see in their eyes that they rather want to stay in the bubble and gaslight themselves than to accept the truth and get help. It’s much easier to blame everyone else than to take responsibility.
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.
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
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–66
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep, and this is how marginalised communities are formed. Same with the text below.
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’smen’s fault, or society’s fault, or anyone but you. That stuff spreads fast because it gives people something to belong to.And is why both POV are bad and should be removed from Lemmy. The owners of such communities get off on having their own army, not that they think they’re helping the cause.
Fuck the gender division, let’s all be misanthropes together.
Nothing against the article but why is this in /c/Technology ?
If something has word online/Internet on it does not mean it has something to do with technology.
So… What exactly is your definition of what should be posted in the technology community?
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I personally browse this community for tech news and updates, this seems more like an American societal problem. Not something happening all around the world. Personally i won’t be interested in reading the article because I live in Asia and the society here is completely different. This kind of misogyny is not seen by me.
the manosphere continuing to build power is all from capitalism, which has removed upward growth and community spaces for young white men. I say white because men from minority groups already have those problems but they don’t have the inherent privileges that allow angry white men to make their problems into everyone’s problems. also parents and schools dont have any resources to deal with children who are already sucked into the manosphere, short of cutting off access to the Internet
FYI, the manosphere is replete with non-white males, and that is not even including the inherent male chauvinism in other cultures. I’m sorry but the critique on whiteness is a little lazy intellectually.
Are you saying non white people don’t know how to use the internet, I’m confused
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.
:(
Bring back periods in initialisms. U.N.
100% lol
I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time, thank you
Why aren’t people asking why are there so many television series where male characters are written as idiotic fops (like really low level 2yo stupidity) who, in every episode, need a woman to come along and save the day,year,universe? Or perhaps where a woman helps convert a male character to what they want the man to be?
It’s all just selling to the idea of feminism and those idiots lap it up whilst men have to keep quiet about their lampooning. And now, these women are Pikachu face over a small backlash against it all?
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 wording you did there is perfect, that’s the exact kind of precise wording people need to be hearing, not this other relational wording junk.
That statistics is bullshit that would be 66% of all young men
Sounds reasonable.
It depends how broad their “masculine influencer” definition is…
I think whether it actually matters would depend more on if they’re consuming “masculine influencer” content exclusively , without any concept of other world views.
Masculine influencer. Another masculine influencer. Not going for “male influencer” here that’s just the top of my head list of people who a) happen to end up in my youtube feed and b) look really cool to pubescent boys. Silverback energy: Big, strong, just, kind.
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.
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.
I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority.
As a positive counter-example, I’d like to give a shoutout to German childcare. In 2022, 17.9% of under 20yolds, 12,6% of under 30yold childcare professionals were men, contrast with 2% among 60 and older. There’s been an active effort both from the professional organisations as well as operators to increase the ratio, right-out masterplanned it, and they’re making strides. As a side-effect: Plenty of young female childcare workers now don’t feel weird at all about wrestling with the boys. Not that “boys need movement because their gross motor skills develop before fine motor skills” was unknown back in my days but the vibe was either “grandma watching you build wood block towers” or “grandma watching you at the playground”.
There’s three aspects to this: They recognised that “women know better than men when it comes to childcare” is BS and recognition was given to masculine styles of parenting, with that the pattern of dealing with the few men that were in the field by “promoting them out of sight”, that is, into administration, was abolished, and finally an active push to advertise the job to men.
Not sure whether the ratio will ever reach 50:50 or whether that’s even important at all, stabilising at 1/3rd or such would be plenty to ensure that things are even-keeled. If you rather become a construction worker I’m not going to tell you to go into childcare instead, and vice versa, not everything that’s not 50:50 is due to gatekeeping. Women aren’t going to become saturation divers en masse, and that’s fine.
There is nothing that needs or requires 50/50 nor is there any benefit to society by forcing it besides being able to say “now it’s equal”. Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks. Men are needed there to provide strict authority for kids when they are not behaving well and for developing skills such as sports, engineering and emotional reslilience.
Your first sentence is completely sensible, the rest is completely toxic and also BS gender roles. Don’t project your emotional and social incapacity on me.
If my wife were to tell my kids “wait until your father comes home” a) they’ll get off 110% scot-free because they already suffered enough dread and b) she’ll get an earful. Ideally, though, of course, you’ll date someone emotionally and socially mature enough so that won’t be an issue. Someone who can stand up for herself, is actually competent, and doesn’t make your kids hate you.
Also please explain: Women are good at emotional stuff but then you need the man to do the emotional resilience thing… what? I know plenty of women who I’m pretty sure could beat you up and work with plenty of brilliant female engineers, and are you accusing me of not caring. Am I just pretending to care about people? Does caring about people not come natural to you? Maybe that’s a thing you should mull over.
You went into extreme edge cases to prove your point. Of course both genders can do both, but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house? Will I just put the burden on my wife and say “hey, you are mature and strong and independent - handle it and let me get a beer”.
As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once. Both are emotional aspects but they are exactly the opposite aspects and complement each other. Kids do need both. Women happen to be better at empathy, and men tend to be better at regulating emotions.
Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don’t want to be in?
but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house?
You want to be a housekeeper? More power to you then but if your wife is an engineer and earns the money why do you suppose she can’t teach kids about it?
She’s the housekeeper and does tell the kids “just wait until your father gets home”? She’s training them to hate you, alienate them from you, that’s a giant red flag. Make sure to connect up with them or you’re going to have a hard time in custody court.
As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once.
Nope. Both are very capable of doing both. Again: Please don’t project your hangups onto others. Female fainting is just as much a trained behaviour (ultimately, an act the actor believes themselves), as male callousness.
Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don’t want to be in?
I’m not forcing anyone here, it’s you who’s drawing lines in the sand, “men shall do this, women shall do that”.
Boys, on average, like to wrestle a hell a lot more than girls, are interested in mechanical things more, when playing they care about outside things. Girls, on average, develop their fine motor skills well before boys, and their play focusses on social scenarios, in a bounded (inside) context.
Let them learn in the order and manner as they see fit, that’s absolutely fine and natural. But you’re an adult, not a kid, your competencies should, by now, have expanded beyond that initial set and focus. If you’re under the impression that “women are better at this, men are better at that” then you’re either 12 and/or are living in a society which actively stifles human development.
I absolutely never said most of the things you claim here that I have said. I never said that one gender can’t do what the other can. Will you stop putting words in my mouth?
If you’re under the impression that “women are better at this, men are better at that” then you’re either 12 and/or are living in a society which actively stifles human development.
This seems awfully ignorant. I guess you think also men are equally good at giving birth and breastfeeding? If so, no need to discuss anymore. Let’s agree to disagree.
I guess you think also men are equally good at giving birth and breastfeeding?
No I think you’re better at putting words in my mouth than I am – allegedly – at putting words in yours. Speak about going to extremes to attempt to prove a point.
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.
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.
Thank you, I am actually shocked by such positive feedback, as I never expect anything positive in online discussions :D
Well, there is not much that needs to be adjusted in traditional values. Or, to put it lightly, that was never the problem to begin with. In traditional roles, both genders use their advantage to the max, and it has worked for millenia.
The issue is that there is a smaller % of both genders, who wish to do something “out of the norm”. Men who want to work in childcare and women who want to drive trucks. That small % should be able to do so, without discrimination. That’s it. That’s all to it, why this entire woke thing blew up. We should preserve the traditional roles as they have proven themselves to work effectively, but we need to adjust it to be flexible for things that don’t fit in the traditional norms.
From somewhere came the narrative that men are gatekeeping women from all important positions, and women in fight for their rights to be equal went the same route to basically gatekeep men in the name of equality. And now we are in this weird limbo where the genders seem to undermine each other whereever they can.
This is one where I think the ball is very much in the women’s court.
I’ve seen a trend of vertical videos of fathers playing with their children, with a caption similar to “my latest ick.”
Millennial men are the most engaged cohort of dads in living memory, and women have responded pretty poorly to this.
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’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.
And how are women pushed out of “man jobs”?
And how are we fixing that?
Is it bosses that aim to have male coworkers turning down women? How is that different than bosses wanting artificially 50/50 turning down men?
Is it not being represented in advertising? How is that different than what happens now. Where most advertising displays just women? Or if there is both a man and a woman, the woman is usually centered in the picture or doing a more important/powerful role.
By “encouraging” women in the workplace, what you see is things being done to men that you complain was done to women.
Better paid jobs are usually more risky, competitive and harsh with short deadlines, that why the are paid more than jobs where you can just do your shift and happily go home like daycare or teaching. It happens that men simply naturally want the adrenaline and excitement that comes with the first because they want to prove themselves.
If you look into history, men where those that went hunting which can be dangerous, while women were those who collected berries and nursed children, not much danger there.
As a man, I actually thing women are crazy for not wanting to keep being a houswife a thing. It’s like being the CEO of the house. WFH guaranteed, you are the one making plans and deadlines, minimal stress, and you have probably enough spare time to do whatever you want as a hobby on the side (unless you have small children). I truly don’t see the downside, I would thrive in home improvement and gardening…
The extreme depression and anxiety exhibited by women in the 1950s contradicts your claim.
True, if we are talking as if today was 1950 and the socioeconomic situation were the same. But it’s not. There’s almost 80 years of progress and the socioeconomic situation is not even comparable. So, although true it was a problem 80 years ago, its a bit shortsigthed to claim same applies today.
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 are 2 issues here that are being mixed.
One is women not being allowed to positions of power. The other is with women being underrepresented in certain fields (e.g., stem).
The second issue is what I am talking about and I don’t think at all that men “choose” not to try certain careers in the same way women don’t “choose” not to study stem and pursue stem careers. For both, social pressure and expectations, an existing field dominated by the other sex with all its implications are factors of discrimination. Strict gender roles are damaging for both men and women, and this is a perfect example.
There are 2 issues here that are being mixed.
One is women not being allowed to positions of power. The other is with women being underrepresented in certain fields (e.g., stem).
I think it’s fair to mix them, to an extent, because I think the degree of underrepresentation is often directly proportional to the prestige/pay/power of the field. Both are symptoms of the same underlying issue, which is bigots discounting women’s competency and refusing to entrust them with things of importance.
But, whats the difference from a male that also wants to get to the same position, and is also not entrusted with the thing of importance? I see plenty of this scenarios play on a daily basis by males who want to get on top but are blocked by fellow males. Its the same situation, why would we need to provide help for the women but not for the men? Would you say that properly competent person would overcome this issue, regardless of their gender?
positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated.
I’m sure it varies from country to country, but in the US women could not study medicine until the late 1800’s and the US Army did not allow female physicians until 1940.
It’s not unlikely to think we have many people today who were alive before women practicing as physicians was common place.
I’m convinced it’s less of a matter of a group “dominating” a space but rather being pigeonholed/forced into it due to a lack of options, and these circumstances have impact that are still felt to this day.
I’m not sure about Italy but in a lot of the US becoming a school teacher requires a college degree and has wages that do not keep up with the cost of living.
You can look up articles of teachers losing their jobs for doing sex work or provocative modeling to earn extra income because their job does not pay enough.
Doesn’t seem like that big of a win? Unless I’m missing something?
Edit: re-read your reply and realized I did not read it properly the first time. That’ll teach me to comment in the wee hours LOL. I greatly appreciate your response! Leaving the original reply in place for the sake of context.
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.
It blows my mind how comments that don’t fit the narrative of the liberals get down voted to doom and canceled, by the same groups that want “equality”, but only if it’s their definition of equality.
I’m all for equality, which is why I can’t stand left-wingers or right-wingers. They’re all full of shit.
Explain how you can cancel a comment ?
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.
Point in case. The moment I mentioned it, the down votes started pouring in.
Humanity has lost the capacity for critical thinking and civil communication.
Bill maher touched on this last night on his show, and i cant believe im seeing more of it.
He argued men are shat on far to often in todays media with female leads taking more lead roles.
He also brought up countless movies starting in the 80s that pushed the dumb dad/male narrative that persists today.
Does he have a point? Yeah idk really.
Get told you’re evil, and the cause of societies problems enough times, you start to believe it.
My ex wife did it to me, always assumed the worst. So I became the worst. It wasn’t even a conscious decision. I just checked out.
Simplistic take, but I see it every day.
Bill Maher is Joe Rogan for people who think they’re too smart for Joe Rogan. He never has an important point to make about anything and is usually completely misinformed. This is a rich white Jewish guy that rarely sees any value in issues raised by any other demographic, yet always complains any time there is even a mild issue facing rich/white/Jewish guys.
Women make up more than 50% of the population, but make up 30% of the leads in Hollywood roles, up from the previous 15% - conspiracy of the woke! Or, maybe… The marketing teams figured out that women would rather watch a movie with a female lead more often. Or maybe… its a load of horseshit.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/women-hollywood-female-leads-1235830860/
Can’t believe I’m reading defence of the manosphere on Lemmy, but here we are.
The dumb dad is fucking disgusting, it’s in pretty much every animated show for kids.
I think it’s far more fundamental than that.
You’ve got a generation of young men who did what they were supposed to culturally: went to school, got good grades, went to college, never broke any laws, and their choices in life are permanent debt and struggling to afford a roach-infested studio apartment, living with their parents, or joining the military to survive. Here in the United States minimum wage won’t even buy you a cup of coffee in large swaths of the country. (And 2/3 of the states still use that as their standard.)
The social contract has been broken, and for the first time, you’ve got a generation who are not going to live more fulfilled and enriched lives than their parents largely by no fault of their own.
Of course they’re pissed. Governments should be addressing this, but it’s more fashionable to blame young men instead, and the right-wingers are the only ones willing to admit there are fundamental economic crises for men.
And what about the women in that same boat? I’m confused by your argument
I’d suggest you read the entire thread.
I did and it seems to have gotten even more off track and deeply into this magical idea that women and other minorities (not sure why they were brought into it) somehow have easier lives?
Thank you for reading it.
There are two factors here in the US that correlate significantly with a person’s lifetime earnings potential: their zip code of birth and attainment of a college degree. It’s exceedingly significant (in a positive way) that women constitute the majority in college enrollment. I think that’s a good thing, but it also demonstrates inequality.
I want to see policies here that mirror those in more progressive European countries: Free college, a federally-mandated living wage that adjusts with inflation, and universal health care. I also want to see universities’ federal funding tied to expansion of enrollment rates, as there are many that keep them artificially low and yet still raise tuition rates every year. These benefits should target low-income communities without regard to race or gender.
In short, I want to see the economic ship lifted for the poor, and that’s how it should be done.
Most young people, and in particular young men, have three choices when entering adulthood: Work for sub-standard wages and struggle alone and/or live with their parents, join the military, or take on permanent debt on the hope of a college degree and an elevated life. (If they’re fortunate enough to land a spot in enrollment to begin with.)
Rampant misogyny has spread because people who consider themselves progressive have ignored these economic calamities and right-wingers have, conversely, highlighted those inequalities, created communities for young men, and gotten rich in the process. Currently the functional unemployment rate in the United States is 25%.
The solution, is creating an economy where prosperity is distributed among a more diverse population of people.
(But I suspect people will continue to vote Democrat and Republican and this conversation won’t matter much in the grand scheme of things.)
Correlating education to wealth is fine overall but you are intentionally avoiding more direct metrics of wealth and inequality to make it seem as if this is direct causation for women having some upper hand.
Women absolutely make less and hold a significantly smaller portion of the overall wealth in this country.
Women routinely have to leave their careers to manage the home and their family (due to archaic misogynistic gender roles). There is also just straight up bias in management decisions about pay.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/
Correlating education to wealth is fine overall but you are intentionally avoiding more direct metrics of wealth and inequality to make it seem as if this is direct causation for women having some upper hand.
No. I’m illustrating that the machinery of government can and has elevated women and minorities in measurable ways.
Women absolutely make less and hold a significantly smaller portion of the overall wealth in this country.
What I’ve suggested above would benefit them as much as men.
Women routinely have to leave their careers to manage the home and their family (due to archaic misogynistic gender roles). There is also just straight up bias in management decisions about pay.
Sometimes yes, hence why there needs to be more regulation, as I’ve suggested.
Your inference that I’m blaming women is projection. What I’m doing is essentially advocating for DEI, but income-based and not based on any one demographic with the dual goals of lessening poverty and improving the overall functionality of society. (So we don’t have entire generations of people being radicalized.)
You’ve got a generation of young men who did what they were supposed to culturally: went to school, got good grades, went to college, never broke any laws, and their choices in life are permanent debt and struggling to afford a roach-infested studio apartment, living with their parents, or joining the military to survive. Here in the United States minimum wage won’t even buy you a cup of coffee in large swaths of the country.
And? Why should they be special? You’re arguing that because young men were given special status before we should bend over backwards by sacrificing others to their success? Women should continue to be underpaid, undervalued, treated as secondary to men’s success? Nevermind the barriers to any sort of professional and societal success as a woman to begin with.
What social contract? Again, the one that puts male wants and needs ahead of others?
That is what you’re arguing, no?
No, this is a misrepresentation of my argument.
From the 70’s to a few months ago, governments have made it a fundamental priority to elevate women and minorities, and it’s worked. (Go look at the demographics of college enrollment, at least here in the US, if you don’t believe me.)
I’m arguing that to fix misogyny you have to fix the fundamental economic crises affecting young people.
But I appreciate that you were very quick to demonstrate the point I made about the fashionability of blaming young men and pretending these problems simply don’t exist.
Way to misrepresent my argument. Thanks for the downvotes without trying to have a discussion.
My opinion is that society in general has elevated men above others. That is still mostly true, from entertainment to employment. Yes, there is no argument that there has been effort, more or less to offer others some of the same benefits men get, but it’s still token in many ways.
Now pay attention, I said society, I did not blame men for this (though they had a hand by aiding and abetting the status quo), there’s an huge cultural momentum behind male over-representation.
As far as the economy, a nebulous “we need to fix it” is gesturing nebulously at an economy that effects everyone, but it’s hard to take you seriously when you only discuss the economy needing to be fixed in the context dealing only with young men.
Respectfully, your hostile and reactionary tone demonstrated quite well that you had no intention of discussing things in a rational manner. You toss around terms like ‘redpill’ like they’re Halloween candy, and it demonstrates that even having the discussion is enough to set off your temper. I even gave you an example of the imbalance in economic opportunity favoring women and minorities, and you just ignored it.
And that’s fine.
Be angry, but the least you could do is try to be productive.
The problem is the systemic impoverishment of young men is the root cause of all this, and that is what needs to be fixed if you want to fix misogyny.
Again failure to discuss the substance of the argument and just making it personal. It’s crystal clear what your objectives are here.
Your argument and vitriole is a nice example of weaponized self-righteousness. You think because you’re aware of a class of people that has a disadvantage in labor, that makes your opinion on that group more valuable than others, and instead of having the conversation about labor or why some men fall prey to bullshit, because of vitriole like this that serves only to alienate, you’re playing right into the hands of people who divide labor and reap profits.
Instead of stating anything at all respectfully and with a level head, you’re shoving things down someone’s throat (LMAO) for having something to say about what misogyny is to a group of people (some men) that understand where misogyny comes from, how young men internalize misogyny and then go into management to perpetuate it, and how’s it’s used in terms of capital markets to sell vibes to people (men and women) that feel attacked by a real issue.
People like you are a dime a dozen.
I think this person sees someone pointing out the problems facing young men and automatically thinks ‘incel’. It can be disorienting to see people who don’t hate women advocating for young men.
That’s not what I said. That’s not what I said at all. And “falling for bullshit” was encompassed by the premise that men have been told since forever that they are special, not necessarily directly but often indirectly by omitting the difficulties others face. Of course you’d make up some redpill crap that even discussing the outgroups that somehow the act places them above men’s issues. But hey, whatever smug rationalizations you’d prefer for your narrative instead of discussing the substance of what was written.
Also the Simpsons, family guy, American dad etc.
Pretty much. Misandry feeds misoginy and viceversa, if you don’t temper your discourse and make it reasonable someone else will come and make you temper it
When a person has a systemic privilege, sometimes equality feels like oppression to them.
Women: it’s all about us, we have our own “online safe spaces” where only women are allowed because in history, men were bad to women, It’s filled with vitriolic chronically-online women where we go around calling men “cunts”. Men should respect this and start up their own community if they want.
Men: <they do that>. It’s given a derogatory name so public opinion can be manipulated - marketing 101.
Women: We don’t like it. It’s not all about us, men are bad to us. They threaten equality - it’s all their fault.
I got banned from two communities on Lemmy recently asking if it really should be host to communities that are exclusionary based on protected characteristics such as gender (to stop extremism). Lots of women moaned and were vitriolically abusive - how dare I call their army out. Community hosts really need to get a grip on such things and encourage inclusionary communities, not exclusionary. Whilst this practice goes on, racist/sexist/other extremist opinions will be fostered on the host and in those communities.
Politics such as “yeah, well, populist opinion makes us feel like we need to separate ourselves from you because you’re not <insert protected characteristic we only like>…” but we totally respect you and want to talk to you as normal in other communities when we want to, is incongruent to the whole concept of an inclusive community that fosters equality such as Lemmy should be.
(And if I had to guess, I think there are some bots on Lemmy also spouting vitriolic replies to stir up such hatred amogst these who isolate themselves - making themselves prime targets for manipulation - all to stir up chaos on a national level)
Let me guess, the men will have their internet traffic monitored & have curfews ??
Oh & be put on a watchlist for merely talking in a raised voice against women.
Because I kid you not, these are real suggestions
And these are real words.
Yup, in the UK women MPs were talking about bringing in curfews for MEN
And a Missisipi Lawmaker proposed making ejaculation without fertilisation of an egg illegal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception_Begins_at_Erection_Act
Sometimes these things are done for effect and aren’t entirely serious. Please learn to tell the difference.
These are lawmakers who have the power to change your lives & your instinct is treat any issue that may affect men’s lives in a negative way as a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBQybc2l-gU
E.g: Trump is sending foreign men to El Salvador to a torture camp. Yeah, it’s only funny when it happens to othet men, when your govt does this to YOU, you will be singing a different tune.
I think I’ll speak up for men here, You need a Men-Only Lemmy/Mbin/PieFed instance. So that you can at least speak up about your issues without being laughed at or downplayed by misandrists
What you are saying doesn’t quite tally with reality. Your argument style seems to be to take things which have some element of truth to them and then take them entirely out of context inferring some kind of semi-paranoid hatred in others where it may not exist.
I could imagine that some people might say you have extreme views.
I am a man who believes that more needs to be done for men, but I think your jingoism does a disservice to the true problems many men face. It is so paper thin, overly simplistic and easy to see through that I believe you are only riling up hatred and will not possibly solve any real mens problems with your current approach.
Honestly, your arguments are a parody of real issues. Stop.
