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.

  • MetalMachine@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      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’.

        • kshade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Especially when the messaging is constant and there’s no room for nuance.

          Like with #YesAllMen

        • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • Sonor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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?

            • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              18 hours ago

              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.

      • catty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

        • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • catty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            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 Priests who 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.

            • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              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!

              • catty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                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”.

                • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  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.

                  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    18 hours ago

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

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

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

    • catty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      This right here. But no one wants to do that because it’s easier to create groups based on existing hatred rather than inclusivity and the people who run such communities do it for the power, not the cause.

      The less time we talk about exclusive characteristics to isolate people, the more time we as humans can spend together. But it’s easier to market to and capitalise on smaller groups of excluded people rather than one large mass.