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

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.

Bring back periods in initialisms. U.N.
- 100% lol
- Bring back punctuation altogether at this stage!
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time, thank you
"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.
:(

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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Yes and also that men are evil. Literally that they feel excluded and scared to participate because of their gender. They don't dare talk to girls. Because of the other assholes that ruined it. They are told it's what women like. It's not true. But these are the ones being caught in the net. Not the asshole, but the timid ones.
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.
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.
- You do realise that the behaviour you're describing is largely programmed, yes?
  Apart from the urge to blow loads everywhere
- I don't understand how you think they would not want to be Mr Rodgers? It's not in their biology. They look for role models and only grifters pretend to know how to get girls. It's so idiotic. Mr Rodgers gets girls. If they only understood that truth they would flock to imitate him
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.
The problem with this is that it cedes all conversations about personal responsibility to the bad actors. I have a very similar story to you in terms of being an ideal candidate for manoshpere recruitment but understanding that it is bullshit. So why didn't we fall into the trap? All these men have the same access to information. Many of them are actually quite privileged as well. What other area of society to we see an adult throwing a childlike tantrum and immediately turn to "well obviously society has failed them." Do we say that about "Karens" making a scene? Do we say that about athletes who get DUIs?
Honestly I don't feel like society has failed me at all. I think that's a very fragile cop out for very fragile assholes. To me it evokes the idea that men should be coddled as society reconciles the consequences of centuries of patriarchal injury. The same people who will be all "we've failed men" will turn right around and say that the homeless person is clearly there because they are lazy, or that black neighborhoods have higher crime because black people are naturally violent.
- It's called emotional intelligence. It helps you not fly off the handle when minor bad things happen. Having the same reaction to a franchise movie being bad as someone totalling your car is not good, yet it's all too common
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’s~~ men'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.
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.
- 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.

According to the Movember Foundation, a leading men’s health organization and partner of UN Women, two-thirds of young men regularly engage with masculinity influencers online.
While some content offers genuine support, much of it promotes extreme language and sexist ideology, reinforcing the idea that men are victims of feminism and modern social change.

So, 2/3 of young men are risking to become incels, right? Because it is hard to imagine a young girl who is looking for a partner with hyperfocus on his own masculinity as well as a partner, who portraits himself as victim? That is sad...

That statistics is bullshit that would be 66% of all young men
- Sounds reasonable.
- White, Gen z men literally went 67% for Trump
- 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.
FD Signifier and Noah Samsem are "masculine influencers" too, this is too broad of a definition when there's a lot of dudes doing it in a healthy way too.
- probably better to call them hypermasculinity/toxic masculnity influencers.
- Hasan Piker as well
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.
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.
people like peterson, tate are largely responsible for thier recent changes too, although they are the latest symptom. peterson specifically is well funded by russia. i also see them discuss incel-ism in many online games too. almost always certain youtube videos like trek, star wars and disney will get these people in knots.
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.

Is there even an incentive for solving men's problems? Feminism can use men to portray the ultimate evil; influencers can use that portrayal to criticize men, engage in rage bait, get attention and secure brand deals.

Capitalism can appease women to promote consumerism wrapped in feminism. Corporations can capitalize on men's loneliness and low self-worth.

I have noticed that men with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations, the money they will earn will be expanded on consumerisms/additions which again can be profited by capitalism and corporate.

The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (men) taking matters in their own hands and rescuing each other I don't think there is enough incentive to help men as community or whole

You make some good points, but i cant resist the thought experiment:
Is there even an incentive for solving women's problems? Patriarchy can use women to portray the ultimate evil; influencers can use that portrayal to criticize women, engage in rage bait, get attention and secure brand deals.
Capitalism can appease men to promote consumerism wrapped in misogyny. Corporations can capitalize on women's loneliness and low self-worth.
I have noticed that women with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations, the money they will earn will be expanded on consumerisms/additions which again can be profited by capitalism and corporate.
The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (women) taking matters in their own hands and rescuing each other I don't think there is enough incentive to help women as community or whole
- I understand your thoughts experiment, and I assure you that I am not assuming that this thought comes from a place of malice. The second thing is that I would be using an LLM model to fix my grammar, so it might sound like an LLM response, and my word choice might not be as precise as native ones.
  I want you to understand that my comment wasn't in contrast to women but to society. Helping women isn't coming from goodwill or a soft spot but as a means to an end. What end? Exercising soft power for powerful people¹, brownie points for PR², and more consumers for capitalism.³
  Saving women and children is still shown as a positive attribute, not as some general attribute. The thing is, people doing this are well aware of that. Recently, when Trump blocked the USAIDs and some other beneficiaries that helped victim groups, a lot of people who championed feminism and the welfare of the weak straight up on camera started babbling about how the USA will lose its soft power in other countries. You can call me naive, but it baffled me. You don't have to pretend that there is no soft power, but at least keep people's welfare as the central piece of your argument or concerns.
  Brownie points: Saving women or appearing to work for helping women is used for PR by political figures, corporations, and people who want to be at the center of attention. Though recently, this one isn't going very well because, due to the internet and the large availability of information, it is very easy to check for credibility. However, there is still enough bias that can be exploited.
  How can I explain this one? Think about it: you don't want half of your customers locked away and banished when you can sell them consumerism as rebellion (the search for cigarettes as feminism).
  If you paid attention, all these three situations are beneficial only as long as women are presented as victims or oppressed. Since there is no David without Goliath, we get men as the oppressor or ultimate evil.
  Capitalism can appease men to promote consumerism wrapped in misogyny. Corporations can capitalize on women's loneliness and low self-worth.
  Patriarchy can use women to portray the ultimate evil.
  No, these both can't be promoted to the same extreme, as it will lead to people resorting to gender roles while expecting others not to, creating extremely competitive conditions for men, as the patriarchy will push the gender role of men asking out, taking financial responsibility, etc. If we assume misogyny is high too, they will soon check out of the dating scene, leading to a fall in the birth rate, which isn't too great for capitalism. We have a whole country as an example of why capitalism's incentives don't lie with promoting misogyny; can you guess that country? :::Yes, it is South Korea.:::
  For capitalism to thrive, it needs just enough modulated patriarchy and misogyny where men remain competitive with each other, and even those who give up remain consumers in the form of some consumerism addiction. If misogyny and patriarchy are promoted enough and spiral out of control, people will check out of society.
  I have noticed that women with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations. The money they earn will be spent on consumerism/addictions, which again can be profited by capitalism and corporations.
  I can't comment on this, as it was anecdotal from my side, and this can be anecdotal from your side.
  The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (women) taking matters into their own hands and rescuing each other, I don't think there is enough incentive to help women as a community or as a whole.
  You are completely wrong on this one. The divide is very important. If they (the rich and powerful) let go of this illusion of helping women or the underprivileged or making it all appear as meritocracy, it will turn into rich vs. poor, and this has never worked in favor of the rich. To maintain this illusion or facade that they are not the perpetrators of the current worsening of society, they need bogeymen, which, of course, we know who they are, and make them appear as saviors they need victim too, and we are back to square one.
  You know what is ironic? This portrayal of bogeymen and its consequences isn't backfiring on the rich and powerful but is becoming a tool to exchange power between different factions of the same wealthy individuals.
Well said, I will note Women have been the target of beauty ads for over 100 years already. Media will make us feel ugly so we buy thier products. They feed on our insecurities for profit, and it's been this way for generations of women.
In the last 10-20 years, I have definitely noticed an uptick with capitalization on men's insecurities. The whole manosphere schtick is about just that, exploiting insecurity.
I can't reject the idea that with the current P2025 goals, and the billionaires pushing for their techno fudalism, that these things are related in some way.
Is there even an incentive for solving men's problems?
What are men's problems? What problem do we suffer that also doesn't affect women?
Feminism can use men to portray the ultimate evil; influencers can use that portrayal to criticize men, engage in rage bait, get attention and secure brand deals.
Isn't that what you are doing to feminist right now? Isn't that what the article is talking about with the man-o-sphere?
Capitalism can appease women to promote consumerism wrapped in feminism. Corporations can capitalize on men's loneliness and low self-worth.
Lol, like we men are immune from corporations promoting masculinity? Old spice, axe body spray, every sports based commercial..... What gender do you think the majority of the CEO for these companies are?
have noticed that men with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations, the money they will earn will be expanded on consumerisms/additions which again can be profited by capitalism and corporate.
Capitalism isn't a fucking gender problem.....it is the thing making everyone's lives miserable. If we wanted to examine gender in capitalism we can take a look at which of the genders gains more from the system. What percent of the oligarchs are men, how many billionaires are men, how many senators and judges that keep the system going..... it's mostly dudes.
The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (men) taking matters in their own hands and rescuing each other I don't think there is enough incentive to help men as community or whole
And the rich switch genders or something? Women can't be part of the struggle against capitalism? What is wrong with you guys, do you not have mothers, sisters, women in your lives who are just friends?
I can't be the only one here who thinks this is insane, right?
Young white men are being squeezed out of the ownership class for the first time and it's because it's the only demographic that hasn't already been squeezed at this late stage of capitalism. The problem isn't with women, it is the economic system that dangles a carrot for some, so they'll wield the stick against others....and we're all out of carrots. Welcome to the party, everyone else has been getting the stick the whole fucking time.
- Eh. Nothin' to lose.
  What are men’s problems? What problem do we suffer that also doesn’t affect women?
  Women have strong support movement on their side. It's not something they gain only through their sex, but rather something they gain I think mostly due to the same gender stereotypes that also act against them.
  Same stereotypes which isolate men and make them suffer in silence and alone, making showing any sign of weakness a fatal mistake.
  Isn’t that what you are doing to feminist right now? Isn’t that what the article is talking about with the man-o-sphere?
  I honestly don't see your point here - what commenter above you said is right, and sure as hell they didn't mention that it doesn't work the other way around.
  Lol, like we men are immune from corporations promoting masculinity? Old spice, axe body spray, every sports based commercial… What gender do you think the majority of the CEO for these companies are?
  What are men problems, huh? Like, dunno, expectation to always go after that false masculinity. Also, as far as I understand it, what you quoted above this part is just continuation of the point above it, nothing to add here.
  Capitalism isn’t a fucking gender problem…it is the thing making everyone’s lives miserable. If we wanted to examine gender in capitalism we can take a look at which of the genders gains more from the system. What percent of the oligarchs are men, how many billionaires are men, how many senators and judges that keep the system going… it’s mostly dudes.
  Yeah, but affects genders differently. Men are eaten, ground to a paste and then spat out. Women are bellitled and their work is seen as substandard. One side doesn't make the other any less, both are problems and commenter above you didn't say men have it worse, just that they suffer from it.
  And the rich switch genders or something? Women can’t be part of the struggle against capitalism? What is wrong with you guys, do you not have mothers, sisters, women in your lives who are just friends?
  What commenter above you is alluding to is the point of the whole post - Men do not get help. We do not have the same societal networks that women have to get together and stand up. And even if women decided to fight for us, it's for naught until we are able to start getting up by ourselves.
  Young white men are being squeezed out of the ownership class for the first time and it’s because it’s the only demographic that hasn’t already been squeezed at this late stage of capitalism. The problem isn’t with women, it is the economic system that dangles a carrot for some, so they’ll wield the stick against others…and we’re all out of carrots. Welcome to the party, everyone else has been getting the stick the whole fucking time.
  'kay. What's with that obsession with women? Commenter above you mentioned once that feminism can use men to portray them as evil, which they do because guess who makes them suffer most, and yet due to that you immediately went and threw everything they said as if they did nothing else but accuse women of men's suffering.
  All in all, as far as I understand the comment above you, all boils down to:
  Women gain on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.
  Corporations gain on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.
  Rich gain, and even if not then loose nothing on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.
  Which are answers to question at the beggining:
  Is there even an incentive for solving men’s problems?
  IMO, the incentive is for us to move our asses, take notes from women and build our own support networks. But that is actually fought against by conservatists/right-wingers, because lonely and lost men make cheap and easily influenced canon fodder.
- Thank you for making sense!
Is there even an incentive for solving men's problems?
Uh, yes? Obviously. If there wasn't then "manosphere" content would never be monetized.
- Mate, what many of those so-called gururs of "manosphere" do is called capitalising on misery of others, not solving. Which I have already covered in my comment above.
A commercial incentive?
If you want to commercialize solving the ills of society, you end up with death camps as being simply the end result of efficiency.
If you want to solve the problems of various demographics rather then viewing them as gender-specific instances in order to benefit the whole of society you get, among other benefits, a lot less genocide.
- Incentives don't always have to be of commercial value; they can also be moral and assumed.
  You don't usually receive commercial value for rescuing an animal, helping a child, or sheltering a woman. What I am saying is, why can't we offer the same moral incentive to men? They are often portrayed as oppressors, and more value can be extracted from the "oppressor bogeyman" than from actually addressing and solving the problems.
  What you are describing is not solving the problem; it is, at best, putting the problem under the rug, or at worst, getting rid of the problem altogether.
Yep
Men are by default worth less really. One man can impregnate many women. If you look at society from a more cynical perspective as just resources, it makes sense that men are inherently far less worth than women.
Value as people? Pfft, forget it. When was that ever practiced?
- I just want to point out, men are not by default worth less.
- Women are the big spenders online.

Because people are lonely and the internet is telling men it's the women’s fault.

And internet is telling women it’s men fault. And poor people it’s immigrants fault. And insecure people it’s trans fault.
We are the most narcissistic generation ever: it’s always someone else fault… and while we are arguing online changes go in the wrong direction (more inequality, more war, less affordable education that means less social mobility)
- And internet is telling women it’s men fault.
  well they have a point. it's not all men who do messed up shit, but if messed up shit happens, it is usually because of men.

Am I tripping, out of touch with reality? These people really don't seem to understand the problem and that makes me seriously question their methodology.

The manosphere is easy to understand. People hate doing work and taking accountability. So just blame the problems on someone else, and watch my podcast and buy my shit.
- The manosphere is one symptom of a much larger problem. Look at it in isolation and you’ll miss the big picture. Authoritarianism is on the rise globally. Loneliness is reaching epidemic proportions. Society’s traditional institutions are a distant memory. All we have remaining are loose groups of people shouting at each other as the spectre of war lurks in the background.
Am I tripping, out of touch with reality? These people really don't seem to understand the problem
How so? Can you explain what do you mean here exactly?
- In my experience the problem isn't the masculinity influencers. Those are just the symptom of misandry in media and a near-total lack of support in society for men, especially young men. When you go on social media almost all discussion concerning men is about how they are the root of all evil, and everything they do is wrong. It's a never ending stream of shaming with no clear way out. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't: If you try to defend yourself or talk about your own problems as a man, it is labeled as misogyny. "Be vulnerable and open up" they say but if you do it's "don't center men you privileged fuck" or "you're being a crybaby".
  All this pressure is an impossible equation to solve for a young man who has been pushed by misandrists into insecurity and longs to be accepted in his community. Not just because society's demands are internally inconsistent, but because they clash with patriarchal ideals among the typical women you'll meet IRL.
  I'm past 40 and while in my head I still consider myself progressive, I used to show it much more when I was younger. I was honest about my insecurities, I would try not to take up too much space as a man, would try to split responsibilities equally, and so on. At every turn this has caused me problems in relationships, not least with my wife of 10 years who left me for some muscular macho guy because she "doesn't feel like I can take care of her".
  So now, while I wish society was different, I try to balance on the needle of acting like I'm not as progressive as I am so women don't "get the ick", while not tripping into what would be labeled misogyny. It's an extremely difficult game to play and it frustrates me to no end that this is where we're at. I'm moving in soon with a woman who I've been dating for a couple of years and it's clear that she desires that I take a leadership position in the home, whereas I'm just longing for a partner who will share the burden with me instead of becoming my subject. But I feel like I have to play that game or she'll eventually lose interest. Too many women want someone to replace their dad.
  Bell Hooks wrote about this already in 2003. But somehow it is completely lost on these UN Women pundits that nothing will change unless everybody (including women) change. You can't just blame it on "masculinity influencers". Why are these influencers gaining popularity? Because they offer some way out, some positive message for young men who are completely starved for positive role models.
  I am convinced that a woman's voice will count 10x more than the manosphere, if it offers compassion and guidance rather than hate. But such voices are extremely rare.
  FWIW, the "men's health awareness month" has brought me some hope in this. It's the first time in a decade that I've seen women in media stand up to defend and show compassion for men, and I think young men will suck that up like a sponge.

This is what happens when you take a gender, destroy their ability to develop emotional regulation and meaningful connections outside of the sexual and then dump them online in a slow rolling apocalypse.

The ones who haven't found a way out have killed themselves or gravitated to mad idolatry of shysters and fools to fill the dopamine void.

We have failed our men.

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.

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 feel like a Cassandra since I was warning about this for years now.
The gender equality narrative got too focused on excluding men specifically, instead of including the less represented gender in each profession. Somehow the idea was that men are privileged in the system and women oppressed, while the truth is that both men and women are oppressed.
Divide and conquer was a small step away from that point.
- I think there is nuance here. My understanding is that there is a very small but loud percentage of women that want to exclude men. When DEI (inclusion of less represented individuals) is encouraged, it's often cut down by "only the most qualified should be hired", detracting from the core topic which is bias. Most of the discourse around privilege was to help understand that men aren't actively oppressive, but many are blind to the ways in which they contribute to the oppressive issues due to cultural programming. In parallel to what we're seeing with protests - inaction is not helpful. Those that are privileged are more likely to be able to change the minds of those that are actively oppressive. TL;DR privilege is just the ability to apply peer pressure.
- The gender equality narrative got too focused on excluding men
  As a man, I've never been made to feel excluded by gender equality in any way whatsoever.
- Same, I've been saying it for a decade that the current anti-men direction can only mean that young men will push against that and not in a nice way.
  Well, guess who was right? Feminism has come all the way from something great and noble towards utter shit.
And it started from that valid criticism and then takes the viewer on a tour by various faces and influencers to pull them into more and more into right-wing territory to radicalize them. Once in that box, they're not getting out again. It's a right-wing conveyor belt.
I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority
Genuinely curious, got any examples of “traditional female majority places” that masculine individuals cannot enter/participate in?
- Daycare, men who work with children in general. It feels like taboo, and I assume it's because the general opinion seems to be that men that want to be around children are most likely pedophiles. I never heard of a program to include more men in daycare.
- Not OP, but positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated. It's not like males cannot reach those positions, but there are social obstacles to that. To make an example from my country, in Italy primary school teachers are > 90% female. I believe in kindergarten they reach 97 or 98%. This is also partially the result of strict gender roles than discriminate both men and women in terms of caring for children (I.e., women are de facto forced to do that, men are pushed away), which then reinforces the social practice of women doing all the caring jobs.
  This is IMHO a problem for both men and women, but probably it's not from the same perspective as what OP meant...
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.
It blows my mind how comments that don't fit the narrative of the liberals get down voted to doom and canceled, by the same groups that want "equality", but only if it's their definition of equality.
I'm all for equality, which is why I can't stand left-wingers or right-wingers. They're all full of shit.
- Personally, I don't mind seeing when comments are heavily down voted. If an opinion is unpopular, that's ok, especially in some areas where you generally know there's a likely bias in the audience.
  What annoys me is seeing comments removed / silenced by mods when the comments dont align. If the comments calling for explicit violence or using overt slurs, by all means censor. But many online spaces will eliminate even respectful / neutral comments simply because they aren't in line with that narrative.
- Explain how you can cancel a comment ?

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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Yes. Correct. But talk to a boy in Jr. High. They aren't as smart about this as you might hope.
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 haven't heard men say shit this stupid my whole life. This isn't 'tradition' it's a growing hate movement.

Fuck the gender division, let's all be misanthropes together.

https://youtu.be/v0dUnoecoZ0

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.

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 read the first paragraph, and as a woman, I feel the same! Solidarity!
  Poverty isn't just for men
- 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?
The dumb dad is fucking disgusting, it's in pretty much every animated show for kids.
- And sitcoms.
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
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.
- If you're hearing men are evil, you may be spending too much time online, or in the wrong places.
  You and your ex are not the whole of society. I've dated shit bags too, I've seen both women and men be shit bags. This is what needs to be avoided, you cant generalize the entire female population because you and your ex wife had a shit fallout. Women shouldn't generalize men in the same way either. I've seen it on the womens side, I call it out or leave the space.
  Sometimes people just arnt meant for eachother. Keep hope and find new love.
  It's good practice to try and not judge new people in your life, based on how an old one treated you. Learn red flags sure, learn your own boundaries, learn what things in life you value, but the whole population is not you, nor your ex.
  I completely agree if you call someone a bitch/dog/liar/asshole/whatever long enough, some people will respond by giving em what they ask. It's tough. I hope youve found healing post divorce and feel happier today
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.
- Believe it. There's a single community in the Lemmyverse that is "women only". And it's a fucking magnet for passing men who absolutely have to make sure they're heard in this one single community when 99.44% of the other communities are so dominated by men that women participating is practically a unicorn.
  Even the "leftists" of Lemmy can't stand a women's space. Lemmy is the manosphere!
Also the Simpsons, family guy, American dad etc.
When a person has a systemic privilege, sometimes equality feels like oppression to them.
- Like what privilege? Not being able to vent or show negative emotions ever? Being shit on for having a penis? Fear and loathing? Being first one to be drafted for war? Being threated as an expendable resource that has no right to complain about anything, and that should just shut up, and work in some hellish factory until their health gives out, then die?
  Power isn't everything you know. It's why I'm more than happy to become as independent of society as possible. Why I'm happy to see the nukes fall. You just want to use me, and leave a corpse behind. Just want to accuse me of other men's crimes.
  Well good luck ever manipulating me again, now that I know what's up.
- Or maybe it feels like oppression because it is. Nobody in this thread has their mind open to the possibility that structural changes disadvantaging (young, predominantly white) men can happen even when other groups are continuing to be held back.

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.
- I think its got merit. Do you recall Steve Bannon when he was just starting out and I quote : "In describing gamers, Bannon said, These guys, these rootless white males, had monster power. ... It was the pre-reddit. It's the same guys on (one of a trio of online message boards owned by IGE) Thottbot who were [later] on reddit" and other online message boards where the alt-right flourished, Bannon said"
  this was him talking about World of Warcraft....
Are you saying non white people don't know how to use the internet, I'm confused

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.

I thought that was dying years ago.

Tate's influence took a step back, but a lot of dudes are trying to take his place.
- Tate is a symptom of the problem, though he does exacerbate it.
- i was thinking j peterson, and roegan. they convinceed alot of men to switch sides. both ironically are funded by putin.

Pretty sure I've commented this on Lemmy before, but I'm gonna drop a link to this Struthless video again because I think it's pretty good at getting the point and really reflected my experience as someone who was once a "young man on the internet", too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHHqQDKzjTg

The code section in particular is gold and exactly the type of online content we need. A big reason why chuds like Tate are successful is because they provide a code ("compass, outlets, who you're with, how it feels"), which before the internet was something everyone built for themselves, actively picking and choosing, while nowadays the algorithms do the picking+choosing for us. Or, well, before the algorithmic internet boomers largely got that stuff from old institutions (be that church or the party), Gen X from rebellion, then come us sweet-spot millennials seeing the boomer/X conflict and having access to previously unheard of amounts of information to actively choose from, and then Gen Y and younger getting fed by the outrage machine.
So what we need is algorithm-compatible content that challenges the whippersnappers to build their own code, in an active manner. Give guidelines, give examples, but don't decide for them (that makes you no better than the algorithm or for that matter Gen X and boomers) and definitely don't make it a list of don'ts: They're in the process of adapting instincts to currentyear, good living requires finding a configuration that denies none, our task is to help them not being maladaptive, steering away from both neurosis (denial of instinct) as well as asocial BS (exploiting in/outgroup instincts for power plays, oxytocin can be vile). To do that you need to point out the various fundamental drives, validate all of them, make that shit resonate as deeply as possible so they spot the drives themselves instead of some social construct painting over it, enable them to draw a map of their needs, then give examples, plural, of how it can all be integrated in a coherent fashion.

Lots of feminists want to blame every problem on men. That backfired and now a lot of men are doing the same.

Loneliness and being disconnected from the community doesn't help either.

Really? Like who? I only ever see or read feminists blaming issues on systemic issues of the patriarchy. Which is not the same as blaming all men at all.
Much the same as saying 'the healthcare system in the US is fucked' is not the same as saying 'all healthcare workers are fucked'.
- But there is no formal 'system' like the healthcare system. Anytime a man is perceived as being in charge (for whatever reason and context), it becomes the "patriarchy" and subject to feminist ridicule and hatred, thus generalising hatred on men.
This right here. But no one wants to do that because it's easier to create groups based on existing hatred rather than inclusivity and the people who run such communities do it for the power, not the cause.
The less time we talk about exclusive characteristics to isolate people, the more time we as humans can spend together. But it's easier to market to and capitalise on smaller groups of excluded people rather than one large mass.
But no one owes us any attention. That is why we have AI.

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
Lol, by who?
Who would even be able to enforce this..... The politicians who are mostly men, the CEO who own silicon valley....mostly men. The police who would enforce the law.....oh also men.
You guys are just scared of your own shadows... Some real soft shit going on in this thread.
- Men huh, Finland is a feminist govt that has a male-only draft. Oh & EU is feminist led https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtXnRwT8K9A
  Feminists & women are pandered to by those men. Those men are kinda like you. Of course some like you is going to victim blame men. Another example is the white feather movement
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSEg3DMGThk

I don't know. Look at all the Tate Todgers around. Also, it does not help that women basically treat men as super-predators. With resentment and contempt nowadays. Leading to...well, men doing the same.

Really, kiss the decency we used to have goodbye. It's all gone now. Best everyone focus on protecting themselves, let the population collapse.

it does not help that women basically treat men as super-predators.
let's do without these stupid kinds of generalizations, alright? Very few women actually have resentments towards (all) men. And many of them do so as a result of trauma.
- Cool that someone is at least against generalizations.
- So it's ok to hate men based on certain criteria you define? Even if it's due to (your) trauma, that still doesn't make it ok to project hatred towards men.

Because they are being completely alienated. The hater haters are also on the rise. Those have even more troubled minds and it's the same on and on until the bottom. It's very easy to reach out to these young males, and fix them. But instead whine. They are straight up looking for role models and only dickheads speak their language. Like.. Tell a lost male to "man up" instead of expecting young males to have feelings is kinda dumb. It's been happening in history over and over. It's just on the rise to then start to wane to then rise again slightly lower the next time when people forget about caring for young males again. They aren't easy so I get it but Jesus with the influencer dicks becoming their fathers.. It's so pathetic

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?

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.
- 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” etc, like, is that not demeaning to men?
  Your opinion matters as much and you should be publicly challenging such shows - as a woman. Is it demeaning? If you have to ask, the answer is most likely, 'yes'! Would it be demeaning with shows where women characters are stupid and only good for sex? Would it be demeaning with black characters who shout all the time, eat chicken and watermelon and so on...the abusive stereotypes could continue. What's disappointing for me are that the actors/actresses who play the roles are setting equality back many years for a quick short-lived buck.
  I do find the upvote / downvote count on my question interesting though!
- “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.

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:

. 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

..." 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)

people who face systemic discrimmination often strive to create environments that are safe and respectful for their own group. They don't do that because they want to be exclusive, but because they don't have the power to make the spaces they are in respectful and accomodating for them.
So if we have the intention to create inclusive spaces and we have the power to do so, then we shouldn't go after the ones who segregate themselves to avoid discrimmination, but instead we should change our own environments so that they don't feel the need anymore to have their own space.
- Very well said. I wish I could articulate this as well as you have here.
- we should change our own environments so that they don’t feel the need anymore to have their own space.
  "we" unequivocally means "men", right? And how is this done... by preventing exclusive communities and only having inclusive communities. "Online" and "safe spaces" are oxymorons.