142
Misogyny to be treated as extremism under new government plans
(www.thepinknews.com)
Mixed feelings about this. First things first, misogyny and online harassment in the wider "internet" is rampant, and yes I believe someone has to do sth about it. I am not sure a super-surveillance nation state expanding its definition of extremism is what I wished for though. What if it was Russia? On top of that: This coming from the highly transphobic UK rubs me the wrong way. I am not sure they will not label transgender rights activism as extremism as well, given how many outlets in the UK entertain Rowling's delusion that it is a misogynistic movement, no less while UK TERFs' litigation is piling up, accusing trans people of harassing them. I am not buying it, yet.
I don't know what made them pick such a restrictive definition here. Why not extend it to extremist hate speech against any of the protected grounds (sex, sexuality, gender expression, race, age, etc...). Like it's great we're protecting one group of people from extremism, but why not protect everyone?
That is why I say it is suspicious, and given recent UK history they just might say that students protesting TERFs are extremists and round them up.
This might also be virtue signalling so that other groups are persecuted. Several things it can be, except the one they claim it is, because if it was, the general consensus is that modern extremists target all those groups of people.
Their choice shows that they don't care that much for those other groups. Effectively, it can be understood as a pink washing move for throwing all the other classes under the bus. I hope I am wrong.
The suicide rate is going up among boys. Might as well encourage it at this point.
The suicide rate is going up among boys. Might as well encourage it at this point.
Misogyny makes the problems young men face worse. Stemming that tide is a good thing.
And telling them over and over that 50% of the population sees them as a threat is going to help? And it so easy to get label as misogynistic where do we call it extremism?
so easy to get label as misogynistic where do we call it extremism
Um, incels have long been in the spotlight as possibly violent extremists. TBF research says that a minority of them become mass shooters, but their ideology is as clearly misogynist as it gets.
over and over that 50% of the population sees them as a threat
It is so easy to pick up some minimal etiquette, which most guys use to feint decency and lead normal lives, despite being more or less misogynist on the inside. If you can hardly stick to that ridiculously low bar, then in good faith, you might need to talk to a professional?
If you spew Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson nonsense at your first encounter with a woman, then yes you are perceived as a possible threat and women are smart enough to show one the door.
Stuff like this is what I am talking g about. I think it's a legitimate concern that we are adding yet another watch list that only targeting one group of people and now you are just assuming I am dome Petersen mutant.
I mean, even the struggle to self-censor crap beliefs is pathetic. Most guys don't even censor themselves or outright announce that they self-censor. Like refraining from spewing transphobia and misogyny in front of women is like refraining from farting on a date. Most women are not even that pedantic with these things. The fact that this poses a mental toil on you as if you cannot tell a radicalized incel from an average dickhead is really alarming. I hope you find peace.
Yeah, that must be it. I sm just a transphobic piece of shit.
It is pretty unclear what you are trying to say. If you are suggesting that this regulation (good or bad in itself) bears a relation to the mental turmoil suffered by young men, you should back it up with some evidence. This is some remote innuendo.
In reality, mental health organizations like APA recognize that young men are under lot of pressure, which leads to addiction, violence, self-harm, steroid abuse, depression, and even suicide. There are special guidelines for counseling young men, and there is active research about the root cause.
A rigid traditional understanding of masculinity is shown to be the main culprit.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that regulating misogyny somehow has an effect on young men's and boys mental well being? So far it is shown that the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson cause greater harm than this ill-conceived law.
But you are just replacing it with a new standard instead of worrying about being viewed as being unmanly it's now fear of being seen as misogynistic and now there are legal reasons to worry.
Right enough, the old standard is toxic and must go. You can wear a dress, cry in public, take it up yours. You still will be a manly man.
there are legal reasons to worry
"You could go to jail for saying the wrong thing! And how you are supposed to know what is considered offensive this month? Who knew you will have to subscribe to a feminist newsletter to be a man? " Did someone get addicted to old privileged sex roles, and now they feel they will be persecuted for hating women's bodily autonomy?
I never said that or anything like that.
I support misanthropy
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
142 points (93.8% liked)
News
23664 readers
3981 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