this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
394 points (89.2% liked)
Technology
71866 readers
4387 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
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 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. (And 2/3 of the states still use that as their standard.)
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.
And what about the women in that same boat? I'm confused by your argument
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?
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 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
Im glad to hear it! We have enough empty buildings and houses that there shouldnt be any homeless.
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/
No. I'm illustrating that the machinery of government can and has elevated women and minorities in measurable ways.
What I've suggested above would benefit them as much as men.
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.)
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.
I read the first paragraph, and as a woman, I feel the same! Solidarity!
Poverty isn't just for men
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
No one even brought up sex or dating. The logical jump to incels here is baffling.
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.
IMO the limited subset arguing here support authoritarianism. Generally a male dominated profession. Seems to be a burgeoning market these days.
True, but does that make Giorgia Meloni a fascist DEI hire?
Yeah, they seem to be more on the side of "national socialism" than actual socialism. Socialism.....but only for a certain demographic that happens to encompass me and people who look and act like me.
Well If it helps I think you made really good points, and in a much more civil manner than what that guy deserved....and he still tried to frame you as having a "hostile tone". Misogynistic never fucking change.
Keep up the good fight