577
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencers

“As soon as I mention feminism, you can feel the shift in the room; they’re shuffling in their seats.” Mike Nicholson holds workshops with teenage boys about the challenges of impending manhood. Standing up for the sisterhood, it seems, is the last thing on their minds.

When Nicholson says he is a feminist himself, “I can see them look at me, like, ‘I used to like you.’”

Once Nicholson, whose programme is called Progressive Masculinity, unpacks the fact that feminism means equal rights and opportunities for women, many of the boys with whom he works are won over.

“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,” he says.

But he is battling against what he calls a “dominance-based model” of masculinity. “These old-fashioned, regressive ideas are having a renaissance, through your masculinity influencers – your grifters, like Andrew Tate.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago

I feel like a lot of people confuse feminism for straight up misandry. #killallmen? #maletears? These were started by so called "feminists" but this is the definition of misandry.

And people wonder why young men don't like feminism when this might have been their only exposure to it.

[-] jandar_fett@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

George Orwell, before he wrote 1984, wrote a treatise on the weaponiziation of language. It seems like he was right to warn people.

[-] jandar_fett@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

To clarify my post: the thought of what the word "feminism" or "feminist", etc could be twisted into, reminded me of Orwell's treatise, and how someone could easily get it in their heads that feminists have an overarching agenda to feminize everyone,. I'd imagine this is especially true for young boys,/menn. The anti-trans and anti gay movement or has pretty much always been framed that way, like the existence of them is going to affect Cis people or some other nonsense that is most assuredly a talking point of the alt right and GOP,. This becomes even easier to achieve if bad actors are being depiberately obtuse to manipulate a populace of young and misguided men, who've been left by the wayside by earlier generations who have regressive, "fuck you, I've got mine" attitudes.

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And how much of that is actually created to stoke anti-feminist attitudes?

[-] nature_man@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Almost none of it is created to stoke anti-feminist attitudes, but it is certainly spread to do so.

There was this great tumblr post a couple years ago that I can't seem to find anymore about how when feminists spread phrases like 'all men are trash', even if in context it doesn't seem offensive or bigoted, people who dislike feminism will spread it to people offended by it without the additional context and say "look, see! Feminists hate all men! They hate you! Why would you as a man want to help people who hate you unconditionally?!", and unfortunately the people most vulnerable to that type of manipulation are teenage boys, who aren't exactly likely to seek out the context that's been removed

[-] atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Of course, we both understand how "all men are trash" could be said without bigotry within the right context, but for everyone else that doesn't understand, would someone mind explaining or clarifying?

[-] nature_man@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Gladly! I'll use an example that I myself witnessed (and helped pull me out of the alt right pipeline, funnily enough) but unfortunately no longer have the link to corroborate my story, as it was deleted by the original post author some time afterwards, I'll also include a timeline of how it gets into the right wing circles and gets spread around, bolded part for those who just want to know the context:

A young feminist makes a post on a personal blog that includes the text "all men are trash" as part of a larger critique on masculine culture and how it negatively everyone, including men. IIRC it was something like "all men are trash, they do bad things [other examples, leading paragraph type stuff]" and then continues in the next couple of lines "That's what men are supposed to be and are lead to be under a patriarchy, but these values are harmful to everyone, them included, that's why the men who don't end up like this, and end up kind and nice, are demonized by those men who did end up evil and cruel, they disprove the need for a patriarchy, [the rest of the article]" (again, this is just what I remember, it may not be fully correct)

Effectively, the author was pointing out that a patriarchal masculine society demonizes men who are kind and help others, while rewarding men who are ruthless and cruel, with the statement "all men are trash" probably being used as an inflammatory statement to make the reader keep reading.*

At some point in the following year, someone in the alt right circle of twitter picks up on this blog and screenshots the paragraph with "all men are trash" and some other minor details that don't include the part about how the feminist actually critiques the negative influences on men

This screenshot then spreads to right wing indoctrinators, who happily run with it and use to to paint a picture of how feminists hate all men and think they are trash, so as a man you shouldn't be a feminist, and should hate feminists because they hate you!

Fringe right wing content creators see the indoctrinators takes on this and edit it together with similar examples, some of which are genuine 'hate all men' people, others are also taken out of context.

Right wing & right wing adjacent content creators release videos using the edited content to make videos with titles like "FEMINISTS think ALL MEN are trash?!", where it eventually reaches me,

I find the original blog in order to try to understand why they could possibly think I'm trash and read the rest of the article, I question why the content creator left this out and then start questioning what else they lied to me about, I start watching left wing content creators for alternate perspectives and end up the way I am now: hard core left wing gay guy who cringes at the fact I was ever even right wing adjacent

[-] moormaan@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Thanks for explaining! Let me explain why I disagree with this in general. I'll share a personal anecdote, bear with me please.

So, a feminist friend shared with me a book on human trafficking for sexual exploitation written by a group of investigative journalists that she had helped translate to Serbian. It was thoroughly researched and well documented. Reading it left a mark on me and taught me things about the world that shatter the childish worldview (this was decades ago, I was a young teenager at the time).

Now, the Serbian translation was prefaced by my friend's fellow activist who was clearly a misandrist. The preface was filled with slurs and general assumptions of complicity and guilt about exclusively men, despite the fact that even the very book the preface was for stated that men also get trafficked (though less), and that women themselves are not rarely involved in the illegal trafficking chains of operation (think Ghislane Maxwell).

Reading that preface made me feel unjustly attacked and I would have dropped the book and never got to the good, educational part, had it not been for my friend's highest recommendation (I'm glad I stuck with it). It turns out the woman who wrote this had had bad experiences with men in her life, and used this otherwise well researched book as a vessel to vent her personal hate for men, which was borne out of her own trauma.

While it can be considered "justified" that she feels this way, this damaged greatly the overall message of the Serbian translation, which clearly took a lot of effort to research, document and write, and than translate and publish in my country. Its educational impact was greatly diminished by the editor's choice (out of activist camaraderie, I'm assuming) to include the hateful text at the very beginning, which unjustly attacks the very audience who would most benefit by learning from the unbiased body of the book. It's a tragically missed opportunity.

While social media exacerbates these issues (all this happened long before social media existed), and bad faith actors attempt to skew positive feminist messages, I think we shouldn't excuse the feminist movement for some of its own failings.

To conclude, I'm a male feminist, but I think writing "all men are thrash" or "all cops are bastards", or "all are " in general in the public sphere is irresponsible.

[-] nature_man@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Thank you for your response! I must apologize firstly for the late reply (I do my best to be on social media as little as possible lately) and secondly for giving off the impression that I am in favor of using terms like "all men are trash", I am against them entirely, not only do they create situations that are easy to manipulate and spin, but they also tend to give power to genuinely awful groups within the feminist movement (TERFs, anti-masc homophobes, misandrist, etc)

My response was intended to give an example where the phrase could be taken out of context to be more negative than its original context.

Believe me, I know the hate all men type feminists exist, and it's baffling to me that they aren't called out more often by people who care about equality

[-] atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Ah, ok, I was having a hard time imagining how it could be just taken out of context without just being entirely misquoted. I was making the mistake of trying to imagine the author saying that themselves rather than saying it as a hypothetical quote to then criticize. And perhaps it's even possible the other way, too.

I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. At times, I haven't been too sure what any given "ism" most generally means when different people might misunderstand or even deliberately skew the meaning, and, at least for me, this helped me see a really good example of how that's done in the context of misrepresenting feminism, in particular. Even without referencing an original source, it's helpful to see examples to learn how to recognize that when it does happen.

[-] Enkrod@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yes, imho it's in the exact same area as All Cops Are Bastards, where it's a critique of a system (in this case the patriarchy) that corrupts every willing and even unwilling participant through privilege and toxic expectations.

Not every cop is literally a bad person, not every man is figuratively trash. But every cop participates in an unjust and toxic system and every man benefits from certain privileges while having toxic societal expectations many suffer under placed on them.

It's an expression for a need to change the system not a condemnation of all who fall under it's umbrella, but it is presented as the latter by removing the context for propagandistic purposes or simply through an intellectual lazyness that wants to feed their own biases.

[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

There is a big difference between something you can choose and something you cannot choose. Your two examples are not analogs. Cop isn't a sex or race it's a job and you must choose to do that job.

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The problem is that people aren't familiar with what feminism actually is, so that leaves room for that kind of nuttery to get pushed.

There was a video awhile back of a "feminist" combating the practice of "manspreading" on trains by dumping water mixed with bleach onto men's crotches. Outage naturally ensued, but later it was revealed to be a Russian psyop.

The group’s website claimed the video was designed to provoke a backlash against feminism and further social division in Western countries.

So, yeah, some of this stuff is manufactured to produce rage and sow division. How much? Who knows?

[-] moormaan@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

I agree with most things you wrote, but one thing confuses me. You seem to suggest that writing 'all men are thrash' is ok in some contexts, but when spread without that context can radicalize boys?

[-] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

However much is intentionally inflammatory controlled opposition, it will never catch up to the work of people like Dworkin, Solanas, or more recently Julie Bindel.

There are plenty of established, respected feminists, who you could never in a million years claim are a psyop, whose work is taught in academia on a regular basis and whose contents would immediately get me banned off of most social media platforms if I were to swap the genders they're talking about and post an excerpt.

And this is just the theory aspect.

Let's not forget the revolutionary additions to the legislative side of things like the primary caregiver standard, or the Duluth model for domestic violence.

There is a reason "feminism" is not called "egalitarianism".

Yes more modern waves have put some token effort into at least presenting a path for men to improve their lot in society, but let's be real, conservatives do that for women too, it's hardly in good faith and it's fundamentally useless because the focus of the ideology isn't to improve the lot of everyone.

It can't be, because it starts from the presupposition that men's lot is the best lot, and women's needs to catch up to men's.

Even when it nominally factors in facts like men being expected to put themselves in harm's way and die for society it also handily blames men for making the choices that, for instance, lead to war, and it implies that therefore it's not as important because the fact that the person sitting at a desk sending men to get shot on the front lines also happens to have a penis somehow makes it less problematic.

So yeah, there's plenty to criticise.

Feminism has some very valid complaints, hell, a lot even, but there's also a shitton of reasons why your average man can look at your typical feminist and ask himself "why the fuck would I ever side with you?"

[-] doesnt_use_lemmy@lemmings.world -1 points 9 months ago

☝️👏👏

[-] 3rdwrldbathhaus@lemm.ee -4 points 9 months ago

The mis-characterization of feminists into "feminazis" started with Anita Saarkesian. I remember gamers coming after her hard during gamergate for literally no reason at all. If you go back and watch old Feminist Frequency episodes she wasnt saying anything insane at all. They were all solidly rational observations about the way women were portrayed in games.

[-] kamenoko@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

The term feminazi began long before gamergate and the movement was a genuine protest against the relationship between game studios and the people pretending to be journalists and honest reviewers.

I watched as the incels and right wing nut jobs rolled in and made it about who Zoe Quinn was fucking. What people don't remember is that she was a narcissistic sociopath who ruined anyone who crossed her and got actual feminists chased off the internet. Reframing the debate to be about slut shaming allowed the incels and the faux feminists to hijack any meaningful dialogue and all the reasonable people distanced themselves from the issue.

this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
577 points (94.0% liked)

News

23310 readers
3728 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS