186
Welcome to the femosphere, the latest dark, toxic corner of the internet… for women
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
186 points (91.2% liked)
News
23736 readers
5289 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel bad for all the dumb guys who get robbed blind by all these con artist grifters. Whether it's someone like Andrew Tate or some OF model, they're getting taken for a ride.
If there's some young man reading this who has or is considering giving money to a manosphere grifter or some cam model, just know they don't know you, they don't care about you, they only want your money. You're nothing but a mark to them. Get off the Internet, go to church, or go to school, or to the library, or do some volunteer work in your community. Meet a nice girl, in real life, treat her right, and cultivate a real, lasting relationship.
Yeah, don't give your money to people give it to the church.
Ah, the original grifters for thousands of years.
Can't tell if you dropped the /s here or not...
If you can't tell, better safe than sorry, get your wallet out. It could be your eternal soul on the line.
/s is for cowards. If your sarcasm doesn't come across then you've done it poorly. If you're really wondering, yes they were bring very sarcastic.
We get it, you're anti-inclusion.
Irrelevant to this post.
I think it's relevant, but I admit I failed to acknowledge a critical part of this situation: the ways in which women are harmed by these circumstances. Obviously, there are the direct effects of the kinds of misogyny peddled by men like Tate, but there are also the less direct and mostly unintentional effects of the broader movement that helped create the conditions that made the manosphere possible.
Liberal feminism tried to liberate women, but unintentionally ended up confining them to a different kind of prison, one in which they would remain the person primarily responsible for keeping house and caring for children, but in which they would also be the sole financial provider, as well. Liberal feminism convinced women that it would be liberating for them to take on both traditional, household gender roles, but all it did was saddle women with an even greater burden.
Meanwhile, the movement to make women independent left a lot of men lonely, bitter, and resentful, ideal for manosphere grifters and parasocial cam models to exploit. It really was a scenario that ended up making essentially everyone worse off. It also absolved men of any of their previous responsibilities.
I think people need to abandon the idea that freedom comes from independence. Independence can be liberating, but it can also be isolating, and burdensome. A person who lives totally self sufficiently, alone in a cabin in the woods is independent, but also lonely and saddled with the entire burden of survival. Many hands make the burden light, fewer hands make it heavy.
Where liberalism fails time and time again is in its antisocial tendencies. Liberalism's focus on the atomized individual so often disregards relationships of interdependence, or even sees them as antithetical or hostile to individual freedom. But this mentality ignores the inherently social nature of our species, as well as the absolute material necessity of social arrangements.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this sentiment with regard to early liberal feminism. Liberal feminism allowed women to vote, go to school, have a bank account without their ~~owner's~~ husband's permission, get divorced, and gave women the freedom to choose what they want for their individual lives. If a woman wants to pursue a life full of traditional gender roles liberal feminism does not stop her from doing that.
Liberal feminism succeeded, though not completely as there are still inequalities that exist, in liberating women within the context of a capitalist society. It roughly brought them up to the oppression level that of a man in a capitalist society. I'm not going to argue that it wasn't a missed opportunity to bring upon a socialist revolution, it certainly was. And in hind sight was sorely needed as among other things it would have likely eliminated the chance of existence for in/femcels and the blight they bring upon the world.
Honestly, that's a problem for those men to deal with. It is also pretty obvious that a certain group of men would be bitter and resentful now that society makes it harder for them to chain down a woman.
This is an easy thing to say when the only people you've ever been dependent on were benevolent. What happens when you require support from someone that does not allow you to make you're own decisions or respect your bodily autonomy? You also need to recognize that feminist women can, and still do, engage in loving mutually supportive relationships. The goal of liberal feminism was/is to allow women to be independent not to mandate that they are.
TBH I cannot really tell if you're arguing that Liberal Feminism did not go far enough and should have been Socialist Feminism or that Liberal Feminism went too far by allowing a woman to live a life independent of a man.
You make a lot of really good points.
I should start out by saying that I wholeheartedly agree that it is a very good thing that women now have the right to vote, go to school, have a bank account, etc. I think those are unequivocally good things, and I am not advocating for a reactionary return to a time before liberal feminism did successfully liberate women in many very important ways. I should have expressed that, that was my oversight and I can certainly see how my comment made my position on that unclear.
Well, that's the thing, I don't think it is just their problem, I think it's our problem.
This is really my issue with liberalism, it's inherently antisocial and hyper individualist, and thus fails to account for the ways in which we are interdependent. In fact, the power dynamics that you allude to in this statement...:
...only exist because of liberalism. It was supposedly the right of husbands to have authority over, and, yes, even ownership of their wives and children, which is an antisocial concept. Some of those husbands were more benevolent than others, just as I'm sure some slave owners were more benevolent than others, but ultimately both power dynamics existed because of the supposed individual "rights" granted to those men by god or nature. Using liberalism to liberate women from institutions that liberalism helped create, isn't ever going to work.
Like I mentioned before, to be a wholly independent person is going to live a brutally difficult life of isolation. There's a reason we evolved to live in communities, because it aided our survival, both as individuals and as a species. We benefit from living in healthy, stable, high functioning communities, and so we should each be interested in the well being of everyone in our community, even the lonely, isolated, hapless young men. Not by returning to a time when they would be given ownership and authority over women, but by helping them understand that they are a part of a community, that they benefit from being a part of the community, but that being in the community comes with certain responsibilities and obligations.
Huh? Sole? House-husbands? I don't think I've ever met one. The norm across the vast majority of working- and professional-class people I've encountered is for both partners to be working or, if wealthy enough (the minority) for the woman to be the stay-at-home child-raiser.
I could definitely imagine many, if not most women being disgruntled at the current socio-economic situation (at least in the US) where they're expected to both work at a paid job full-time (just like their spouse) while also doing a majority of the unpaid child-rearing work.
I'm sure that's true, but I was thinking specifically about single, working mothers. You're right, though, it's not only single mothers, these realities affect women who are in relationships as well.