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.
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.
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
The dumb dad is fucking disgusting, it’s in pretty much every animated show for kids.
And sitcoms.
Don’t watch those, though the few I’ve watched didn’t really have that. But it wouldn’t surprise me.
But I think with kid shows it’s much more dangerous, they soak up the patterns and internalise them.
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.
maybe it feels like oppression because it is.
Oppression being committed by who exactly? What demographic currently holds the reigns of power in our governmental and economic hierarchy?
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.
What you don’t understand is that if they are coming for young white men now, it’s only because they’ve run out of minorities to disenfranchise. So if everyone nis getting abused now…it’s a class struggle.
The reason no one is responding to the blooming problems of young white men is because those have been problems everyone else has already been experiencing. And guess what, the majority of young white men didn’t ever want to hear about the problems of everyone else.
Now that you are experiencing the same issue…does this make you more empathetic to the troubles of your fellow workers…No, you bitch and moan about anyone trying to say it’s not just a problem for young white men. You still care nothing about class solidarity, you just want to bitch about your own demographic being kicked out of the free treat club.
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
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.
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.
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.
In nearly every society on earth, since the beginning of recorded history… Men have achieved nearly a totalitarian monopoly in nearly every hierarchy of power.
Even today, what gender are the majority of ceo, the congressmen, the senator, the judges, prosecutors, and the police? Examine the leadership of nearly any hierarchical body of control and the majority of these positions are men… So what power is attacking men, what industry, what laws…If it’s men attacking young men…then it’s not a gender issue, it’s a class issue you fucking children.
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.
You are using misogyny as a negotiation tactic? “Guess will just have to let bad things happen to you until boys get their treats again…”
What a fucking loser. Can’t cope with not getting insta middle class for nothing so they become a reactionary chode… Real great class solidarity bro.
I can’t believe how much shit you are getting while having perfectly valid and rational claims. The fact this fucking chode is claiming your being reactionary while he froths at the mouth with accusations nof misandry is making me feel insane.
You are being too kind, but I will use the privilege reserved for middle aged man to fucking yell at emotional little boys throwing tantrums.
Surrounded by incels, I guess. Mad they aren’t special anymore.
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” – Franklin Leonard
Yeah… I didn’t think the culture was as ubiquitous. Kinda scary to see on a platform with so many self professed “leftist”. You can’t seriously think you are on the left when you only care about providing for your specific demographic.
The kids are not alright apparently.
No one even brought up sex or dating. The logical jump to incels here is baffling.
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.)
And when exactly did those college enrollment demographics change? Oh yeah, the moment college degrees became worthless. White men are choosing not to go to college, they aren’t being forced, were not running out of colleges.
I’m arguing that to fix misogyny you have to fix the fundamental economic crises affecting young people
Well, you’re not just saying that… If we were to say start a program to fix the economic crisis that is effecting the youth, how would you go about doing that? Oh by targeting the most disadvantaged demographics…oh no, that would be…DEI.
blaming young men and pretending these problems simply don’t exist.
You are the one pretending as if this was only a problem for young white men. You’re just taking your licks for the first time and being a baby about it.
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.
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.
Though I’d hardly acknowledge nearly anyone in this thread as a man. Weak shit.
Speaking of toxic masculinity…
“toxic masculinity is when men judge men harshly for being sexist”. Totally got me there.
Sure. Real men don’t cry. Real men aren’t weak. Real men toughen up and don’t complain. Real men don’t care about injustice if it’s them who are affected. That’s you.
Nothing to do with people in this thread being sexist: That’s your addition to justify your toxicity to yourself. Even if that is the case, that this threat is full of sexist assholes: You’re still taking a toxic approach to facing it.
Solidarity with women is not the same thing as accepting ad hominem and infantilization from a stranger on the Internet. Soak your head.
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.
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.
And what about the women in that same boat? I’m confused by your argument
Exactly…that’s been the status quo for young white men only. People of color and women have been getting the shit end of the stick the whole time.
If a woman is going homeless there are resources. If it’s a man there’s almost nothing. I work serving the unhoused.
Having been homeless before, the resources were not different for me or my partner, male, at the time. Separate sleeping quarters obviously. But the same exact resources.
Genuinely what are you talking about…Where is this?
I had to do community service in Tennessee, i chose to help feed the homeless at a soup kitchen, anyone could eat there, but there were only permanent beds for women. It was nice they fed the men too but thinking back, where did they go at night?
This was not the case in North Carolina
Ohio. Cincinnati, specifically. It’s not 100 to 0 women resources to men, it’s more like 55 to 5. There are some cold weather shelters for men, and places to eat, but mostly there are zero beds unless you’re willing to sign up for a drug testing program, and even then there are costs and limited spaces. There are quite a few women’s shelters in the area.
I would agree here. Shelters are hell for both genders.
I was homeless with a three months old. Without a kid, I would have done as I always did and couch hopped or slept on benches til I got back on my feet, but I had a baby and wanted to get stable fresh out of a DV situation.
The shelter I stayed at had a “single” floor with both men and womed (divided by rooms) and the top floor was families.
Everyone likes helping a single moms out. And I made it out, got stable and its been 12 years without homelessness. It was because of those programs.
I know a lot of men slip through the cracks. I have met a handful who chose homelessness because thats where they find thier community. I get that, the most community I ever felt was in low places surrounded by others also in low places.
I’ve also met men like my bio father, who after years of addiction, homelessness, violence and prison time, was able to reach resources and get housed and remains comfortable.
These resources, especially now, are being cut. It’s definitely scary. I do think there are a lot of well, Walter Whites of the world, where rather than take help and admit vulnerability, they do it their own way, on thier own terms, fuck the consequences. All because being vulnerable and admitting you need help are like, anti-masculine traits in our current culture.
I think there are a lot of things that lead to men being homeless. There are programs, but usually worh strict requirements and some people, you just cant box them.
I will say for people with children, there are many more programs available.
To note, you don’t see many homeless women, and there is reason you don’t see them. When my mother was homeless she lived deep in the woods and moved around constantly as to avoid being detected. You wouldn’t have known she was homeless, if only because she had a car, but still.
I mean, there are reasons that women need to be away from men sometimes. And it’s not because we’re having a wonderful time in life. And this “manosphere” is only creating more dangerous situations for us.
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.)
I read the first paragraph, and as a woman, I feel the same! Solidarity!
Poverty isn’t just for men
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!
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.
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.
Also the Simpsons, family guy, American dad etc.
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.
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.
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
To be fair, ghostbusters 3 was really bad.
Or the new star wars “movies”
I like how both of you knew what I was referring to :)
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
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.
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.
Tell that to a child slave in a cobalt mine.
Being “dedicated to succeeding” is a one-way ticket to burnout.
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.
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.
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 - procrastinating of serious symptoms which are initial warning signs that become fatal illnesses.
Yep exactly and men’s health matters
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
Top tier whataboutism.
Anyway, my point is that any time someone says “I know exactly what I’m doing. Follow me in my massive restructuring of society!” The results typically land somewhere between a massive waste of money for unappealing infrastructure, to everyone dies in war and starvation. The particular political bent doesn’t matter. Restructuring a society is like cutting all the leaves off a tree so you can put them where you think they should go.
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.
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.
YEAh and because a woman gave birth to that man, it’s women’s fault.!!1
Logic is good.
? what do you even mean?
I mean it’s just as nonsensical as claiming that most bullshit is done by men, women are just as capable.
So what do you mean, what do you even mean?
it’s just as nonsensical as claiming that most bullshit is done by men
no, it is factual? the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men.
This wikipedia article lists all different studies why. The short answer is patriarchy - men have more occasion to commit crimes and it’s more acceptable from gender role point of view for men to do so.
It also list studies of crimes and offenses where women are found to be more often perpetrators than men, including a very comprehensive guide to domestic violence studies.
To sum it up - you’re both correct, men do more bullshit, women have similar capacity for it, we are expected to express the bullshit differently.
Not all women are becons of morality.
While statistically women are more likely to have empathy and emotional understanding and more communication thus, we are not perfect by any sense.
Your underlying rhetoric here is deeply divisive. I agree men are more prone to violent action, whether in a leadership role or just as a person. It’s why more women attempt suicide but more men are successful.
We cant just throw men away. We start with the culture, we start with teaching boys emotional intelligence, language, and how to reach for support. Then, we don’t reject them for reaching for such support.
It should be considered masculine to show vulnerability, it is one of the hardest things to get used to, if you’ve not been allowed/able to for so long. However, vulnerability leads to personal growth. Real vulnerability, followed by acceptance from peers, will give personal growth, understanding, and acceptance.
Fathers, hug your sons and tell them you love them. Teach our sons better. Cultural change is slow, you jumping on to say it’s always mens fault is a shallow and lazy thought. You’ve put so little thought into the “whys”.
The men/women culture war has been amplified enough now, we need to come together and find how we can support eachother.
I’ve been a victim of multiple men. Like, it’s truly stupid, where somedays I hate myself solely for letting myself in these situations. But I don’t harbor hate for men. I feel bad for the ones who are lost, because I too have been lost.
I want us to focus more on solutions than just, bitching
Thank you for taking time to type this out. This is quality content on the topic, and should be posted under each gender war thread
Fuck the gender division, let’s all be misanthropes together.
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.
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
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
Really? Finland had the far-right Finns party in coalition in the last few years.
Can I ask a question ? Why do you assume that feminists were ever pro-left ?? Seriously
That has nothing to do with my remark. The far-right is anti-feminist.
As to you question, there are many different strands of feminism and Marxist feminism, anarcha-feminism, intersectional feminism, queer feminism etc. are very much pro-left.
Sure Finland’s female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br> https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994
So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war, TERFs are a thing too & guess what ? The feminists do not oppose the draft. (Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)
“2Sure Finland’s female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br> https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994”
If you see feminism as every time there are women in government, why do you oppose feminism?
“So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war”
They’re a right-wing austerity government but I’ll bite, which war are you talking about?
“TERFs are a thing too”
Sure, I never said all feminists are left-wing. There are reactionary strands of feminism (if we accept that they are indeed feminists) such TERFs for example. My point is that feminism is not a monolith and the bulk of it is left-wing.
“The feminists do not oppose the draft.”
Correction: A country right next to an expansionist dictatorship does not oppose the draft. I’ll probably get shouted at buy when you are right next to a country like Russia, the draft is a necessary evil.
“(Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)”
Perhaps the draft should be extended to women. In any case, irrelevant to your “point” about feminism.
Men huh, Finland is a feminist govt that has a male-only draft.
Men still make up the majority of the parliament in Finland, though that particular country has a long history of promoting equity.
Oh & EU is feminist led
You mean that the EU has leaders who are feminist… Men still hold the majority of the seats.
Feminists & women are pandered to by those men. Those men are kinda like you.
Oh no… People who believe in equality…the tragedy.
Of course some like you is going to victim blame men
How exactly are you being victimized while I am not… and we’re both men?
Another example is the white feather movement
Lol, that was a nationalistic movement to get people to go to war. I don’t really think women were really in control of the war effort during WW2.
You don’t believe in equality, PERIOD. Because people like you oppose women being drafted. You also deny systemic misandry like the alimony laws & even support policies like abolishing prisons for women & reduced sentencing for women & only women.
There are multiple documented evidences of feminists shaming men into getting drafted while they get to be safe & secure & one of their excuses was “We have a crisis in masculinity” & Finland has a women-majority govt, of course the diversity part is a lie.
EU is led by feminists & BTW, pandering to women is also feminism, there are literally reserved seats for women & a male-only draft. These are all Equity to you huh
I like how you’re putting in so much effort into pushing the narrative that it’s men who do it, when the biggest warmongers just so happen to be women & there’s not a single word of opposition to the draft by feminists.
Like the White-feather movement being nationalistic, yet it was still women who shamed men into fighting the war (women didn’t want to go to war & even today women as a whole are opposed to conscription for women)
Reminder women in the military are placed in either guard duty or administration.
You don’t believe in equality, PERIOD. Because people like you oppose women being drafted.
Wrong fuck face, I don’t believe in the draft for men or women.
You also deny systemic misandry like the alimony laws & even support policies like abolishing prisons for women & reduced sentencing for women & only women.
The majority of law makers are men, the majority of judges are men, the majority of law enforcement officers are men… How is men making rules that you perceive to negatively affect men = misandry?
There are multiple documented evidences of feminists shaming men into getting drafted while they get to be safe & secure & one of their excuses was “We have a crisis in masculinity”
Lol, you really think the white feathers was a feminist movement?
Finland has a women-majority govt](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carmenniethammer/2019/12/12/finlands-new-government-is-young-and-led-by-women-heres-what-the-country-does-to-promote-diversity/), of course the diversity part is a lie.
“Moreover, almost half (47%) of the country’s” having a woman as the leader doesn’t mean they have the majority. You’re either lying or you can’t fucking read.
I like that you posted an article praising the quality of living and equity in a country and think it helps your argument.
EU is led by feminists & BTW, pandering to women is also feminism, there are literally reserved seats for women & a male-only draft. These are all Equity to you huh
Lol, I don’t think you know what equity, feminism, or majority means.
like how you’re putting in so much effort into pushing the narrative that it’s men who do it, when the biggest warmongers just so happen to be women & there’s not a single word of opposition to the draft by feminists.
Lol, name a time in modern history where a woman was the leader of a nation who started a war…
Like the White-feather movement being nationalistic, yet it was still women who shamed men into fighting the war (women didn’t want to go to war & even today women as a whole are opposed to conscription for women)
And you think I like the white feathers? Being a feminist doesn’t mean you support every decision of every woman… That’s just insane. That would be like me blaming every man, for WW2 because Hitler was a dude.
Reminder women in the military are placed in either guard duty or administration.
Lol, that’s not even true… Women have been allowed to be in combat roles since 2013.
And guess what, it’s not the women who say they shouldn’t be
Because people like you oppose women being drafted.
Anybody sane opposes the draft for women. Because anybody sane opposes the draft for anybody, a set that clearly includes women.
Stop blaming straw feminists for your own shortcoming you grotty little boy.
You purport to being intelligent so you know what you’re doing with your inflammatory responses of explicitly “opposing the draft for women”.
Oh and yet more insults in your responses. I sense a theme here :(
Except the feminists actually do not oppose the male draft via their collective silence you gaslighter, just like how they don’t promote anti-false allegation laws or gender-neutral laws.
Stop trying to move goalposts & absolve feminists of their lies when feminists now use the “crisis of masculinity” excuse to bring back the draft in EU.
But then I wouldn’t expect any empathy for men’s plight from anyone who comes from LazySoci.al
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.
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.
But no one owes us any attention. That is why we have AI.
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, the more time we as humans can spend together. But it’s easier to market to and capitalise on pockets of excluded groups of people rather than one large mass.
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’.
I get what you’re saying, and you’re right that blaming “the system” isn’t the same as blaming every individual. But in practice, a lot of young men hear exactly that kind of blame coming at them personally. Maybe that’s not what’s intended, but it’s how it lands. Especially when the messaging is constant and there’s no room for nuance.
Look at how often phrases like “male privilege” or “toxic masculinity” get thrown around without any real context. Not all of us grew up with privilege. Some of us were raised by single moms, worked garbage jobs, got chewed up by the military, or have been beaten down by life. So when someone says we’re part of some oppressive system we supposedly benefit from, it can feel like a gut punch. Not everyone takes it personally, but enough guys do that entire online communities have formed around that frustration.
And here’s the thing. Academically, I get what patriarchy means. But I think we need to unpack it in a broader way. We should be asking who actually benefits from it. Because it sure as hell isn’t the guy sweating in a ditch or working a night shift at a warehouse. Patriarchy isn’t a blanket of power that covers all men equally. It’s a system that, like most systems, tends to reward the rich. The guy at the top. The one with the money, the connections, and the insulation from consequence. It’s less about gender in the real world and more about class, and when we ignore that, we miss the full picture.
Not all critiques stay abstract either. I’ve seen feminist writers and influencers say things like “men are trash,” “all men are potential predators,” or “if you’re not actively dismantling the patriarchy, you’re part of the problem.” Maybe that’s not what academic feminism teaches, but it’s out there. Loud, viral, and shaping how these conversations are received.
Just like you can say the healthcare system is broken without attacking nurses, you can criticize patriarchy without alienating people. But the way it’s said matters. If someone walks away from that conversation feeling like they’ve just been blamed for everything, they are not going to stick around and talk. They’ll shut down, get bitter, and start listening to whoever does make them feel seen. Even if that person is a complete grifter or extremist.
We have to stop just talking about young men like they’re a problem to be fixed. We need to start talking to them, honestly and with some respect. Otherwise, we are going to keep losing them to the worst voices out there.
What conversation though? The guys that lap this up dont even have conversations with women and feminists to begin with, which is why they can be manipulated to accept such a slanted view of their arguments - they have no point of reference. Akin to how people with no Muslim friends or colleagues in their lives are more easily misled to believe fearmongering and misinformation spread about them. I think you touched on the real root of the problem: influencers and social media funneling people into echo chambers.
I get that both sides sometimes talk past one another, but in my experience the young guys I talk to (via gaming mostly) have never spoken to a feminist or read a lick of literature and when bored online have just sought out a voice that tells them they are the good guy, or shits on a demographic that’s not them. Those voices usually start in the ‘feminist fails #38’ style YouTube videos (cut and edited to misrepresent of course)… then the Stephen Crowders… and the Andrew Tates. The pipeline to the manosphere / red pill scumbags, or worse incels or blackpill.
These guys existing and their views increasing is not necessarily a symptom that feminists are messaging incorrectly or that academics need to use different words to explain systemic issues - IMO they’re just another wonderful side effect of the “eyeballs = money, damn the content” algorithm preferences on social media, coupled with a very accepting attitude towards mysogyny and redpill content in Facebook, YouTube and other major social media content curation teams. All you have to do is look at who they censure and ban and who they don’t (and who they unban), and who they promote. Go use a fresh install of one of these platforms on a new device to see what their algorithm promotes in the main feed to a fresh new user. The angry rich white guy influencers get peppered in amongst the Mr Beast and music videos from the first couple of pages, so it’s no wonder more guys are exposed to this bullshit.
I tell the guys I’ve spoken with that those ‘entertainers’ are poison, chipping away at their empathy and compassion and pushing them to more isolation and fear - and that they need to be critical of what the influencers claim, and show curiosity for the community around them and engage with it rather than accept the simplistic charade. I’ve converted a few but its an uphill battle and that conversation takes months. The article points out that this is an issue that needs to be addressed - not that ‘boys need to be fixed’… but that the rise of this manosphere is damaging to all - men and women, and should be addressed systemically. Be that by parents paying closer attention to their kids content consuming habits, regulation for social media giants, laws against those who encourage sexual assault or violence, enshrining rights and protections more clearly into law, and so on - multi-pronged. The trouble is, a huge amount of guys commenting on this very article didn’t bother to read it and went straight to the usual talking points. I don’t think that’s you, but I think you can see the comments I mean.
I tell the guys I’ve spoken with that those ‘entertainers’ are poison, chipping away at their empathy and compassion and pushing them to more isolation and fear - and that they need to be critical of what the influencers claim, and show curiosity for the community around them and engage with it rather than accept the simplistic charade.
Serious question, and I’m not trying to troll here. Do you tell this same piece of advice to your female friends about more radical feminist content creators?
I haven’t seen any radical female content creators personally, and there certainly doesn’t seem to be a large industry of them forming. If there is they’re very well hidden and poorly advertised.
But if that happens I’d absolutely be for talking people away from listening to them.
Especially when the messaging is constant and there’s no room for nuance.
Like with #YesAllMen
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.
Really, there is no formal system of patriarchy? No kings in your world?
The Catholic church still to this day refuses to ordain any women into the priesthood: men only.
Ask a girl in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia if there’s any formal patriarchy when they try to go to school, or drive, or go outside without head to toe covering, or simply go outside unaccompanied by a man.
In the west there are hundreds of industry bodies, clubs and business societies that wield enormous power and are exclusively men-only - or were men-only until the Civil Rights Act and were then taken to court to have their rules banning women overturned, or pressured for many decades to change their stance, such as the Garrick Club in the UK whom only finally opened their doors to female members last year.
I’m a man but I’m starting to hate men too with these replies.
Oh dear.
The Catholic church still to this day refuses to ordain any women into the priesthood: men only.
Not my world, but so what? There are also the
Roman Catholic Women Priestswho felt left out so made up their own story.Ask a girl in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia if there’s any formal patriarchy when they try to go to school, or drive, or go outside without head to toe covering, or simply go outside unaccompanied by a man.
Again, not my world. But… Have you asked if they want to go to school, drive, go outside, or have you assumed they do? Not being a dick but there are very different opinions generally held by women of different cultures and religions that contrast with others - who’s right? (Historically people die over such issues). Also, beyond what Fox news states, there are schools in middle Eastern countries, some are voluntary. Such issues are very complicated and are not black or white.
In the west there are hundreds of industry bodies, clubs and business societies blah blah blah.
So? "The Garrick Club is a private members’ club in London, founded in 1831 as a club for “actors and men of refinement to meet on equal terms” - you’re whining that a men-only club is not ok, but a women-only club is?
A string of strawman arguments. I think you think your opinions make you look cool though. But it’s ok, hate me for my opinions because you can only accept those that are marketed to you.
These exaples are “not my world”, what does that even mean? You live on a different world? Examples have to be specifically from your zip code to be relevant discussion on a global web forum do they? Did you actually argue maybe all women are ok with being oppressed in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Because many have famously vociferously opposed it, up to the point of being executed and being shot in the head. One of them works at the UN now, putting together work like whats in this very article. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018
The Garrick Club has incredibly powerful members including kings and prime ministers and hundred of members of Parliament. If you cannot see how excluding women from such a club is an issue of patriarchy then you are really not trying very hard to understand anything here.
And of course, everything is a strawman argument nowadays…
A strawman argument is stating a false weaker argument (or premise) of your opponent, to then argue against more easily than their real argument.
Your claim: there is no ‘formal’ system [of patriarchy]
Me: here’s several examples of formal systems of patriarchy.
You: I am being strawmanned!
Lol, just like I wrote below earlier, anything where an aggressive woman perceives a man as being in charge, it becomes part of the patriarchy and is a target of ridicule and abuse for such angry women. You bang on about the Garrick club as if you’re pissy because it exists, whilst defending women-only clubs.
The Garrick Club has incredibly powerful members including kings and prime ministers and hundred of members of Parliament. If you cannot see how excluding women from such a club is an issue of patriarchy then you are really not trying very hard to understand anything here.
Or, maybe you can’t accept man-only clubs because you’ve been manipulated into not doing so, but can accept women-only because “omg oppression they need a safe space wah wah”.
I’m banging on about it? You highlighted it from my list and came up with the false narrative that I am somehow OK with womens-only clubs, something I’ve never claimed (that’s a strawman FYI).
You’re not interested to learn, nor to have an honest debate. Good luck with that attitude, you’ll need it.
Women: 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>
Women: We don’t like it. It’s all about us, men are bad to us. It threatens equality.
Pray, therefore it’s all BS.
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.
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 have inclusive communities. “Online” and “safe spaces” are oxymorons.
You’re doing fine without the first half of oxygen there.
by “we” I mean everyone who has the ability to do so.
And how is this done… by preventing exclusive communities and only have inclusive communities.
you cannot just claim a community is inclusive. When members in it don’t feel comfortable, then it is not inclusive for them.
We just have to let people who constantly suffer any sort of discrimination have their own space. When they feel welcome outside of it they’ll feel less need to be in their own “exclusive” space. Blaming them for segregating themselves is thinking of it the wrong way.
“Online” and “safe spaces” are oxymorons.
I don’t think they are. The fediverse is a great tool for it. There are servers that have the intention to offer a safe environment for certain identities.
you cannot just claim a community is inclusive. When members in it don’t feel comfortable, then it is not inclusive for them.
Of course it’s possible. If they don’t feel comfortable, then more questions need to be asked as to why they the individual do not and nothing will change until the focus is on individual feelings of those who <feel> marginalised so then inclusive communities can be fostered to work together, and not manipulating the world to pander to those who feel marginalised using anger, derision, and hatred. This leads to better inclusivity, better understanding, which in turn allows for better rules/systems to develop. They can not be fostered by force/anger/because we say so’s.
constantly suffer any sort of discimination
“Constantly”? But they don’t. They may feel they do due to some mental illness, manipulation by e.g. exclusionary groups that breed hatred of a target etc, but they don’t “suffer” constantly. That’s just polluted rhetoric in the Western world.
Exclusive communities don’t “help” those people who think they’re discriminated against to become inclusive, they only strengthen the isolation and strengthen the hatred against those they feel discriminated by, run by people who enjoy the power they have over their victims - the community members.
What some people seem to generally be writing in this thread is that women can have exclusive groups but men cannot because women don’t like such groups, all without seeing the irony.
so systemic forms of discrimination do not exist in your opinion? your wording seems to imply that there is no actual discrimination/bigotry happening. If that’s what you believe we have no basis to discuss on. We have a different perception of reality.
It’s silly to just claim your community to be inclusive and then invalidate anyone’s experience who feels differently
People can disagree with each other but still respect each other.
It’s silly to just claim your community to be inclusive and then invalidate anyone’s experience who feels differently
You mean like the women criticising the “manosphere” because they feel differently?
what do you mean by “criticising the manosphere”?
Very well said. I wish I could articulate this as well as you have here.
thank you!
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 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.
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.
:(
Bring back periods in initialisms. U.N.
Bring back punctuation altogether at this stage!
100% lol
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.
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.
you,'re right, it’s not okay. But that can be something genuinely difficult to overcome. And it wouldnt be right to blame them the same way we blame bigots who never experienced anything similar.
Those bigots surely will have experienced lots of similar things (like everyone else) making them not bigots. Maybe the person projecting hatred onto this ‘bigot’ lives in such an isolated world. Inclusivity would help them understand here.
Inclusivity would help them understand here.
I agree! My point is this: People choose to self-seggregate because of their, in many cases, valid experiences of discrimination. That’s how it is and it is okay. And instead of blaming them for “isolating” themselves, we should instead strive to create environments where these people feel welcome to be a part of. We cannot do that by invalidating the experiences they have.
Cool that someone is at least against generalizations.
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.
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.
That statistics is bullshit that would be 66% of all young men
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.
Sounds reasonable.
Yes, so you can see how that would be a problem
I guarantee 100% of ravens are getting together for a human murder party. Do you see how the ravens would be a problem?
White, Gen z men literally went 67% for Trump
they also showed increased support from gen-xers and milleneals for trump too. when alpha come of age, i fear for them too. this also goes for POC men that went for trump.
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 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 privelage 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 privelaged are more likely to be able to change the minds of those that are actively oppressive. TL;DR privelage 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.
Every once in a while my uni has some interesting events (at least based on the description), public announcement sent to everyone, and the last sentence has almost always been some form of “women only”. There is usually no gender neutral equivalents to these events and they’re done in the name of gener equality. So I very much feel excluded by gender equality.
Oh no, a place you couldn’t go as a man?!?!? How could you ever survive?!?
You’re part of the problem
Nah, I’m just not a fucking loser
That may be, but you are not all men ? So some have.
There have been several cases here in Australia where men have been denied access becase they are men and taken it to court… and lost, I suspect that’s sort of what the person posting is referring to. Theres a carve out in the law to allow womens only spaces.
Now, whether you agree with the ruling of the courts or not, is to some extent ilrrelevant to the discussion (the courts are notionally after all just following the law) because gender equality then isn’t about what’s on the tin and that’s when you get push back.
I like how you were down voted for it. Hell there’s a free online course in my country right know that is not open for everyone, it says in the description that anyone can apply for a chance but only women will be allowed to participate.
I mean it’s specifically a girl’s coding class, I suppose there’s also open classes. Segregated resources are not the same as one side lacking resources.
The trouble with that kind of stuff is usually that the gendered version is some half-assed feel-good BS. There’s not a single martial artist, gender doesn’t matter, who respects “women’s self defence” courses because the stuff they teach there is, at best, useless. More often it’s actively dangerous placebo and reading the instructions for your pepper spray will be much, much more helpful.
As a man, I’ve never been made to feel excluded by gender equality in any way whatsoever.
Same here. However, I suspect you and I are not zero-sum thinkers, and can conceive of a future in which both men and women can apply themselves to their full potential.
But it seems like a key part of the counter-movement to gender equality is based on the notion that every time a woman gets a job, they are taking it away from a more qualified man. It seems to be built on a mountain of insecurity more than anything else.
When businesses commit to having a certain percent of employees/managers/board members/etc be women, that means it’s at the exclusion of men. Maybe you’re not in the category of men who miss out on jobs and promotions simply because they need to hire a woman instead of a more deserving man, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
You can’t commit to “diversity” without taking away opportunities for progressives natural enemy, the straight white males.
Honestly I think examples like this are counterproductive, the average man will never be considered for one of these positions, nor will the average woman. It is useless to get angry at such a situation as it only serves to engage people in the “gender war” which only serves to distract you from the real issues which are almost completely class issues. Instead of getting angry that some woman “took away” the job of some man who was “more deserving”, you should get angry that that person is most likely getting paid a hundred times more than you and will cut your job in an attempt to make the company appear more profitable.
It’s not only executive/board level jobs that have “diversity quotas” now.
So if a company traditionally had 10 men employees and now has committed to having gender equality, you see this as 5 jobs where men are no longer considered, rather than it historically being 10 jobs where women weren’t considered?
rather than it historically being 10 jobs where women weren’t considered
But that’s not true.
Hire the best person for the job. Period. If the best 10 people for the job - ie the most qualified, the most experience, interviewed the best, the best culture fit, etc - are all men then that should be fine. Hiring less qualified, worse people simply because they’re women or a minority is ridiculous, and it means that more deserving people are missing out.
There are absolutely jobs where hiring the most qualified person for the job is critical. There are a lot of jobs where the threshold for good enough is far below that, and most companies are at least as concerned at getting the cheapest labor that can fulfill the position as they are at getting the best person (at that lower rate). Adding additional constraints like diversity isn’t going to affect those jobs any more than the company’s desire to save a buck.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I’m sure it varies from country to country, but in the US women could not study medicine until the late 1800’s
In Germany at the moment around two thirds of medicine students are women and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the similar in most western countries.
It’s a little over 50% in the US, and is largely due to women out performing men in school.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
