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.
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.
Like with #YesAllMen
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.
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?
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.
Not my world, but so what? There are also the
Roman Catholic Women Priestswho felt left out so made up their own story.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.
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!
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.