Why is the manosphere on the rise? UN Women sounds the alarm over online misogyny
-
There no way Andrew Tate is cool at a party.
No only in a podcast of his environment with slave girls that are punished if they don't agree
-
Let's try this again: If, as you say "women do empathy, men do resilience", then why should childcare be 70:30? Why not 50:50 so the kids get taught empathy and resilience in equal measure? Also, how can you even be empathetic if you lack in the resilience department.
Because more women than men want to be in daycare, it's unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women. And the gender ratio of employees doesn't mean thats also the ratio of what kids will take away from this. Does this mean that in daycare without any men the kids have only 50% of the care they need? Of course not.
Again, ONE DOESNT EXCLUDE THE OTHER. Everyone has empathy and resilience, but so far in general women tend to be better at empathy and men in resilience. Why force one to do both, when both can thrive in what they do better?
-
You are completely overthinking it. I readily acknowledged it is reductive. And my example was an example, a vibe. I do not, in fact, fish. Nor consider desert dwellers to be less masculine or something.
A typical male experience in a hetero relationship is that women are overly fussy over many things, I think most of it is culture (a generalised fear of a catty mother in law not considering you good enough for her son causing a fear of losing your partner because he might listen to her instead of you) so when we hear "men are simple" we don't hear "men are stupid" but "finally, someone who understands the pointlessness of having seasonal napkins". If you wanted to say "men are stupid" you'd have said "men are primitive", it's not hard to tell apart. We do, in fact, have social and contextual awareness, I freely admit that we use obliviousness as a conscious strategy.
Are there men who are totally into decorative towels? Sure, but if we hedge everything with "but not everyone does that", "of course, all people are unique and different" then communication becomes a chore. It's like hearing "sunscreen is important" and insisting "of course, if it's winter that's a different issue, we wouldn't want to essentialise weather to be carcinogenic". Come on.
And our interaction here, ironically, falls into a similar pattern. "No, really, it's fine that we don't have decorative towels" -- "There must be a deeper meaning behind this, a social force, someone pulling his strings, why would anyone not want to have complex things like decorative towels, what is the meaning of this, am I on top of the situation"... no. He meant what he said, exactly that, and nothing more: My hands are dry, the towels didn't make them dirty again, that's all I need from a towel. I want my pants to have pockets so I buy them with pockets instead of worrying whether they ruin the silhouette and agonising over compromises. There's a lot of freedom in simplicity. That inner mother in law, though? Of course everything is complicated, how else would she be able to drive you crazy.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Bruh
You just sterotyped women so fuckin gross here. Jesus christ
-
You're part of the problem
Nah, I'm just not a fucking loser
-
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.
What are men problems, huh? Like, dunno, expectation to always go after that false masculinity.
And you think we don't have expectations foisted on us? Expectation to raise the children. Expectation to do the housework. All while conforming to standards of beauty that range from the uncomfortable to the literally lethal.
Compassionate fucking Buddha, there's a reason why the manosphere is pointed at in disbelief and it's right fucking here!
-
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!
-
Because more women than men want to be in daycare, it's unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women. And the gender ratio of employees doesn't mean thats also the ratio of what kids will take away from this. Does this mean that in daycare without any men the kids have only 50% of the care they need? Of course not.
Again, ONE DOESNT EXCLUDE THE OTHER. Everyone has empathy and resilience, but so far in general women tend to be better at empathy and men in resilience. Why force one to do both, when both can thrive in what they do better?
Because more women than men want to be in daycare it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women.
I don't expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, "ideal". It is you who is saying "guys get some other job I don't care how much you want the job and how good you'd be at it, we already have a quota of 30%".
-
Bruh
You just sterotyped women so fuckin gross here. Jesus christ
wrote last edited by [email protected]I was pointing at a pattern, cultural at that, and all patterns are reductive. If you can't see the pattern I alluded to you have my condolences, and if it hit you like a brick then you also have my condolences.
The only thing I won't stand for here is saying is "pointing at patterns is bad". These kinds of conversations need to be had if issues are to be understood. And they need to be understood, assumptions have to be questioned, before anything can change for the better.
And if you just don't care about the issue, which is perfectly fine, then FFS don't womensplain the male perception of "men are simple creatures" to men. You came out swinging, remember.
-
What are men problems, huh? Like, dunno, expectation to always go after that false masculinity.
And you think we don't have expectations foisted on us? Expectation to raise the children. Expectation to do the housework. All while conforming to standards of beauty that range from the uncomfortable to the literally lethal.
Compassionate fucking Buddha, there's a reason why the manosphere is pointed at in disbelief and it's right fucking here!
Hey. Nice try. My own comment tho, slightly higher.
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.
I never said women don't have expectations on them, in fact I literally said the opposite ^^ In the part you quoted I underlined just the fact that men face certain problems, not that only men face certain problems.
-
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.
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.
-
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!
I know exactly the community you mean but I haven't interacted with it much beyond occasional visits and upvotes. It's sad to hear that perspective of Lemmy, because it does get rose-tinted as a bit of a leftist utopia and this is the first time I've seen the ugliness. I really appreciate it being shared.
-
Because more women than men want to be in daycare it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women.
I don't expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, "ideal". It is you who is saying "guys get some other job I don't care how much you want the job and how good you'd be at it, we already have a quota of 30%".
Did I say anywhere that the 30:70 means a really had 30:70 cap and that nobody after that is free to join or leave the job? Did I say that the 30% is exactly, not more not less, the amount of men who want to for ex. work in daycare?
-
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!
you sound pissy and project hate in every of your responses and on to everything you perceive to involve a man. I feel sorry for you. However, you're making up facts that the other communities are "so dominated by men" to appease your distorted perceptions of the world.
-
Did I say anywhere that the 30:70 means a really had 30:70 cap and that nobody after that is free to join or leave the job? Did I say that the 30% is exactly, not more not less, the amount of men who want to for ex. work in daycare?
You said, verbatim:
Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women
and then went on to justify it with
because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks.
implying that more men would mean worse results "because women are so much better at it": If the ideal is 70:30 then everything else is worse, no? And you were also being very essentialist, saying that "women provide one thing, men another".
The trouble with childcare in Germany wasn't absence of men as such -- it was absence of male insight into childcare. Doing things in way that make a lot of sense but women aren't as prone to do instinctively, but are very capable of doing. As long as there's a baseline level of diversity such that both approaches are present, things are just fine. There's no ideal ratio, there's a wide span of equally good ratios that ensure that everything is covered.
And btw you don't teach emotional resilience by being authoritarian. You teach it by being there, hold watch, while the kid figures out how to control their emotions, maybe some gently encouraging words. Shouting at them might shock them into silence but it's not going to teach them anything about actual emotional regulation. The very presence of the word "authority", on top of that "strict authority", in what you say betrays your ignorance about childcare. If you have kids I feel sorry for them.
-
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.
Lol, you aren't accepting their argument because they didn't say please and thank you?
You are accepting that women are a more disadvantaged labour class, but are being a prissy little prick because they are upset about it? That's the softest shit I've ever seen.
Show some class solidarity for your sisters, the most disadvantaged need to be lifted first. Stop whining like a 4 year old, we men have every advantage in this system compared to our counterparts. Though I'd hardly acknowledge nearly anyone in this thread as a man. Weak shit.
Solidarity with women is not the same thing as accepting ad hominem and infantilization from a stranger on the Internet. Soak your head.
-
Solidarity with women is not the same thing as accepting ad hominem and infantilization from a stranger on the Internet. Soak your head.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Lol, what part of her comment was an hominem, how did she infantalize anyone?
His response was inappropriate and completely avoided her points. Telling a woman to watch their tone is about as common as a misogynistic dog whistle as you can find.
Just because he didn't call her a slur doesn't mean he wasn't being an asshole. The substance of his response was more offensive than any ad hominem.
I dont respect anyone defending sexism, so throwing ad hominems at incels is fine with me. I also don't care about the opinions of misogynist, so please fuck off and go be a disappointment to your mother elsewhere, thanks.
Edit: oh I thought it was some once defending you, you were the fuckface in the original post. Yeah you can go fuck yourself, Lord knows you're never going to find someone else to do it for you.
-
Just because the youtube algorithm promotes outrage doesn't make it right.
Obviously... but kids aren't going to stop watching because of some tut tuts and wags of the finger. That just makes them like it more.
-
Explain how you can cancel a comment ?
If you don't understand the concept of cancel culture, there's not much I can explain, sorry.
