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.
Why aren’t people asking why are there so many television series where male characters are written as idiotic fops (like really low level 2yo stupidity) who, in every episode, need a woman to come along and save the day,year,universe? Or perhaps where a woman helps convert a male character to what they want the man to be?
It’s all just selling to the idea of feminism and those idiots lap it up whilst men have to keep quiet about their lampooning. And now, these women are Pikachu face over a small backlash against it all?
Honestly, as a women, so it’s not my opinion that matters, but even that meme/joke/trend that “men are simple creatures”, “keep your belly fully and balls empty and we’re happy” ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?
The men in my life are just as complicated and multifaceted as anyone else. These kinds of jokes, or online rhetoric, to me, feel like y’all are calling men simple and dumb.
The men in my life are not simple or dumb.
Your opinion matters as much and you should be publicly challenging such shows - as a woman. Is it demeaning? If you have to ask, the answer is most likely, ‘yes’! Would it be demeaning with shows where women characters are stupid and only good for sex? Would it be demeaning with black characters who shout all the time, eat chicken and watermelon and so on…the abusive stereotypes could continue. What’s disappointing for me are that the actors/actresses who play the roles are setting equality back many years for a quick short-lived buck.
I do find the upvote / downvote count on my question interesting though!
Personally, not inherently, no. And definitely not in context, context here being the existence of “men are primitive” and “men only want one thing and it’s disgusting”. Is it reductive, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Catch some fish, chop some wood, smoke the critters, unclog the sink so that stubbles will actually flush instead of cling to the rim, annoying the wife (for incomprehensible reasons, but a well-functioning drain is its own reward), be a rollercoaster for the kids, kick back on the sofa, get your balls emptied, if that’s not a satisfying day then you have issues.
Complexity is not a good in itself. Be only as complex as is necessary to stay simple.
But as you describe, is that every man?
Certainly not.
I’m mom and I’m the rollercoaster, the house repair gal, and I have a higher drive than my husband, though I would never describe our booty time as, “getting my balls emptied” or some female equivalent. It’s more like, activity time with my best friend, alas,
You just sterotyped an entire cohort of people in your description, I hope you understand that.
I refuse to sterotype my fellow women. I know women, we are all different, and I myself, don’t hit many of the sterotypical markers.
You describe your version of the every man’s day here, then say any man who lives differently has issues, because that day isn’t satisfying for them. Is that kind towards your fellow men you think?
You are completely overthinking it. I readily acknowledged it is reductive. And my example was an example, a vibe. I do not, in fact, fish. Nor consider desert dwellers to be less masculine or something.
A typical male experience in a hetero relationship is that women are overly fussy over many things, I think most of it is culture (a generalised fear of a catty mother in law not considering you good enough for her son causing a fear of losing your partner because he might listen to her instead of you) so when we hear “men are simple” we don’t hear “men are stupid” but “finally, someone who understands the pointlessness of having seasonal napkins”. If you wanted to say “men are stupid” you’d have said “men are primitive”, it’s not hard to tell apart. We do, in fact, have social and contextual awareness, I freely admit that we use obliviousness as a conscious strategy.
Are there men who are totally into decorative towels? Sure, but if we hedge everything with “but not everyone does that”, “of course, all people are unique and different” then communication becomes a chore. It’s like hearing “sunscreen is important” and insisting “of course, if it’s winter that’s a different issue, we wouldn’t want to essentialise weather to be carcinogenic”. Come on.
And our interaction here, ironically, falls into a similar pattern. “No, really, it’s fine that we don’t have decorative towels” – “There must be a deeper meaning behind this, a social force, someone pulling his strings, why would anyone not want to have complex things like decorative towels, what is the meaning of this, am I on top of the situation”… no. He meant what he said, exactly that, and nothing more: My hands are dry, the towels didn’t make them dirty again, that’s all I need from a towel. I want my pants to have pockets so I buy them with pockets instead of worrying whether they ruin the silhouette and agonising over compromises. There’s a lot of freedom in simplicity. That inner mother in law, though? Of course everything is complicated, how else would she be able to drive you crazy.
I’ve got a song for you.
Bruh 🤢
You just sterotyped women so fuckin gross here. Jesus christ
I was pointing at a pattern, cultural at that, and all patterns are reductive. If you can’t see the pattern I alluded to you have my condolences, and if it hit you like a brick then you also have my condolences.
The only thing I won’t stand for here is saying is “pointing at patterns is bad”. These kinds of conversations need to be had if issues are to be understood. And they need to be understood, assumptions have to be questioned, before anything can change for the better.
And if you just don’t care about the issue, which is perfectly fine, then FFS don’t womensplain the male perception of “men are simple creatures” to men. You came out swinging, remember.