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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
Some part of this is the male influencers, and some part of this is kids being ignorant. But being a straight woman in that age group must really suck.
There is no better proof that one doesn't choose their sexuality than the existence of cisgender heterosexual women. I mean, hell, transgender heterosexual women, good luck to them, holy fuck.
I'm starting to think that being a straight woman just sucks at any point in time, because young men are not the smartest ones on the block. Today's young women, though, realize that there's an off ramp.
Even 100 years ago there was social pressure on young men to learn how to behave properly. Being kicked out of the local church meant that you couldn't hang with your friends and would probably have to leave town.
Today, you can spend 20 hours a day online, hearing exactly what you want to hear.
I've heard this content classified as "traditional" but what I've seen of the manosphere+friends is something else truly terrifying. It's a mix of cult-like masochism and rhetoric you'd expect of a mass shooter or bomber; and it's public and widely-viewed, liked... I grew up Catholic and in "traditional values". This stuff goes beyond "woman is the home-maker" and "a family is a man and a woman"; to "women are sex slaves and property that men dominate". It sounds like the ideology of some vile hentai, and perhaps that's where it comes from.
Hell.., some of this rhetoric IS from mass-killers. The New Zealand mosque shooter was inspired by "Great Replacement Theory" at a time where that ideology was relegated to niche crevices of 4chan. Now extremist racist/incel beliefs are a core part of the platform of UK Reform, USA MAGA, German AfD, and general pronatalist ideology. And those parties are rising or seized power.
Someone was talking about online sports betting.
The pointed out that it's aimed at young men who like sports anyway. Now they have a toxic and addictive app running 24/7.
Ah yes, the kids these days are missing out on the church-provided misogyny, that's the issue.
Yeah I’m not going to back up church attendance as a solution but I think the point is they’re missing a real community to hold them accountable and even instill them with positive values in the first place, leaving online male echo chambers of despair to fill that void.
I agree. Everybody agrees young men need to learn to be decent, but seemingly nobody wants to teach them "positive masculinity" without first beating them over the head about their inherant badness and the sins of their bloodline.
...Then these kids run to these disgusting "manosphere" cults that welcome them for being young men and offer the facade of fellowship and community, and everyone's all surprise_pikachu.jpg that they start to internalize that poison.
Yep. I don't really see any positive organizations/groups love-bombing young men.
Honestly, my generation also heard rather dire messages of a bleak future for us - literally, one of my first memories of punk was listening to "No Future" by the Sex Pistols. We were watching our parents grinding it out as economic hardship and new ideas about how to run corporations hit our parents. Ronnie Raygunism and Thatcherism seemed to result into young men falling into groups like the neo-Nazi skinheads in some areas, but that was at the margins and there were no "influencers" and there was no way for people like to "find the others" like this.
Back then, if someone bitched like these incels or these douchebros wanting a trad wife - they'd be told they are just too chickenshit and lazy to clean themselves up and learn to talk to women. They were not able to all find each other, en masse, have a few of them profit off of it, and then tell each other it is all the fault of the womenfolk. That's not to say all of us were in a healthy place, but at least there was no multiplier effect like there is now.
I was one of the biggest fans and boosters of the 'net in the early days. These days, it seems to have so many negative effects, especially on the impressionable.
I think there is a real male loneliness epidemic and a crisis of identity among younger males, it seems.
Few people/institutions seem to be offering men an off-ramp from this confusion and stress...except for this toxic brosphere stuff, sadly. It really explains a lot about things like the Proud Boys.
Like you - I would not suggest a church as the solution. I really don't know what the answer is for healthy outlets and support structures for men truly is, though. People yelling "men suck" at them is likely to only push them deeper into the worst behaviors.
Historically, this kind of discontent has never ended well.
Almost nobody is the smartest, unfortunately. Good relationships have always been hard to find, and the more discerning you are, the harder it is.
I think we are seeing that more today because historically, marriage was the default and the fact that most of them were bad for one or both participants was known by everyone but never addressed. See the entire genre of "wife bad" boomer humor as Exhibit A.
I'm an old man and still dumb as fuck. But at least I believe in equality. Dunno what's wrong with the young dudes, they need to get a grip.
There is 1 single problem with this survey: it centers on the average among different parts of a world instead of showing the percentage for each country or region clearly. This actually twists the perception of data, since in some countries religion and traditions are stronger or simply more citizens exist. Moreover, in a single big country like the US each state is a like a separate mini country what also makes data more mixed.
I personally would like to see something like a map of temperatures for each country before judging the situation.
The study has each country listed out. It's just the press releases that don't. The study didn't break out each age cohort for each country. That can be inferred but there are likely a few surprises, and the bias you mention from cultural groups with a larger population
Here's the comment with the study link:
https://mander.xyz/comment/25666102
Here's an example:
Wow that changes a lot about the title.
Taking it at face value you’d walk away thinking this is the dominant attitude in most of the western world, when that’s not the takeaway at all. A title like that just makes most men and women think their country is more conservative than previously thought. Talk about not helping young people that have more balanced views.
Thank you! I've commented in another post how bad the survey is, glad to see I'm not the only one
The older I get, the more I think that the internet was a mistake. It had a lot of potential for good and has delivered on that in many ways, but it has also unleashed an uncontrollable onslaught of radicalization, hatred, isolation, and mental illness. It's harms have outweighed the good by orders of magnitude.
Lots of things are fine when they are first introduced because we carry our lived experiences into it. But those who grow up with the new thing shaping their lived experience don’t bring that perspective to it.
This is going to be very true for AI.
Thanks for putting it in such concise words.
I am an embedded developer so the LLM/AI is a omni-present talking point and one of my friends was saying that he loved LLMs because they could generate big chunks of code and he can go through it after and fix the mistakes.
He has the skills to fix the issues because he has a decade of non-LLM experience.
But someone that doesn't have that experience will have a hard time finding the correct fix when the vibe code isn't working as it should. They will rely on LLM telling them that they were right, so here is a new fix that doesn't fix the issue.
I have such a hangup on this. Currently, a "tech journalist" in one of the big newspapers in my country is doing a series of articles about how he's vibe coded an app that, apparently, has been green-lighted by the IT department and is very useful for his fellow journalists.
He admits to not being able to read or write a single line of code, and describes what he does as "leading a team" where he makes decisions about what kind of features to implement, when things are too slow and need speed improvements, etc. Apparently, this web-app is now 66 000 lines of code, and used in production (unclear what it's actually used for). The LLM agents take care of everything from writing the code to setting up PR's, reviewing, testing, and deploying.
I can't help but see so painfully clearly that he's created 66 000 lines of liability, that he has exactly zero concept of potential bugs in, and which no human in the world is likely to fix quickly if production goes down. He has no idea whether database rollbacks are safe or even possible if something is corrupted.... there's just so many foot canons waiting to go off. And this is just 66k lines. That's not even a small web-app, it's tiny (this guy can't see the difference between generated files and written files, so I'm assuming 66k includes everything), and my personal experience is that LLM agents just get worse as complexity increases.
The biggest problem is that it's painfully clear that this guy is oblivious to all the above. He's happily chugging along as long as this looks like it's working. I can only assume that other people with his level of experience (that is, none) see it the same way.
The internet is just a way to get a message across. Overall, Gen Z (and further ones) are fucked in pretty much every aspect. No money, no housing and generally no real future. That leads to desperation and as a result you start asking yourself questions why up until the 1970s everyone had it better than the previous generations and now we’re constantly getting fucked. Then come the “saviors” of the internet that blame it on illegal aliens, women having rights etc because according to their logic we had it good in the 70s so we must reverse everything back to the way it was in 70s. If young people get some breathing room the trend will reverse itself in my opinion. But seeing as no one is coming to save young people, it will only get worse.
Then come the “saviors” of the internet that blame it on illegal aliens, women having rights etc because according to their logic we had it good in the 70s so we must reverse everything back to the way it was in 70s.
The problem isnt just the "saviors" and their message. Those people have always existed, always had the same blaming strategy. The problem is that the internet has made it easier for those messages to reach a global audience, has made the messenger faceless and unaccountable and given the presumption of legitimacy, has made it easier to get absorbed into isolated communities saturated in this kind of messaging, and made it easier to warp the worldview of the community to something antithetical to reality. If you run into a dude saying wacky shit in a bar, and he just seems to be some drunk asshole, you're not likely to give him much credence against all of the other messaging around you. But if you find an entire community saying the things he says, and they welcome you in, and you get a sense of comradery and purpose from it, that same messaging holds a lot of sway over you.
Isolation has always been the secret sauce to radicalization. Exposure is the antidote. Humans have always had cultural feedback loops that reinforce a specific worldview. And meeting with other cultures often causes conflicts when those worldview collide. The promise of the internet was a more global culture wherein we have a shared reinforced world view. But that didn't really happen for everyone. What we are seeing now is that same feedback loop phenomenon in a digital space, but often with dramatically different worldviews, even within the same local physical space. That still causes conflict when those communities collide, both online and in the real world, but now that conflict happens everywhere, even in your own household sometimes.
We're losing physical communities, friends and family for our online echo chamber communities. People are definitely driven more into those digital communities as their physical life is more of a struggle financially, socially, etc. Relieving those struggles would certainly go a long way in remediating the problem, but it won't go away.
100% agree. The weaponization of information has made the dumbest people not only dumber, but just outright worse humans than they would have ever been.
1000% agreed.
The good potential was lost when the old wild west Internet, where any random person could build a site and start a community. Now that there's enough money and corporate presence on the Internet, they build up all the sites and tools that places use to socialize with others and, lo and behold, they implement algorithms to make sure reactionary beliefs are spoonfed to as many people as possible.
They understood the meta on what communication and community building was going to look like, and now, the only hope to get people out of these pipelines into reactionary echo chambers is either to pray all the big social media platforms decide en masse to stop promoting these views out of the goodness of their hearts, or we all just give up the poison and go back to living like it's the late 90s and the Internet is just a thing you maybe check a couple of times a day at home and you otherwise live in the real world.
Interesting fact totally ignored by the click-bait headline:
Among women, 18% of gen Z and 6% of baby boomers agreed.
So, among women, support for traditional gender roles tripled.
Social media ‘influencer tradewives’ and the red pill circle are a huge reason both are going up in support, it kind of comes with less critical thinking, education, social and civil rights for women being taught, the works.
May they never have wives.
But fr, one of the things I've found interesting is how many men want a partner to the point of distress, but have batshit expectations of her, compared to how many women I've known who casually are interested in having a man but have hard limits as to what they're willing to put up with and would much rather be single than put up with a shitty guy. And in response to this the same men who are functioning as worse than nothing options, are increasingly expecting more and more out of women.
When I look at this as a market problem I come to the opposite conclusion as these young men: that men should consider obeying their wives.
But yeah violent misogyny must be met with feminism with teeth. We will not go back.
One of my Gen Z colleagues described a conversation they had with their wife wherein she said “you’re my best friend”, and he responded with “I’m not your friend I’m your husband”. I bet that made her feel good.
Did you call him a douche?
You should have
Idk, dipshit feels more appropriate. "Hey dipshit, sometimes you have to pay attention to the meaning over the words when your wife is expressing how she feels about you"
So, Gen Z males are three times as likely as baby boomers to remain single?
Pretty much. Voluntary incels.
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/22/nx-s1-5166115/politics-dating-gen-z-millennials-boomers-poll
This seems to be the press release from one of the groups that did the study:
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/almost-third-gen-z-men-globally-agree-wife-should-obey-her-husband
At the bottom is a download button with extra data analysis and their methodology but here is a direct link:
FFS don't share journalism that summarises a study without linking to it
Apart from the fact that this is reported by The Guardian. It is important to highlight that it is not just a "gen Z" problem. This is yet another battle against the generations - and the fact is, gen alpha also has this problem.
It is baffling how yet again, people are needlessly correlating problems to a particular minority. Problems as a result of precise indoctrination, crafted by our glorious leaders and corporations. The fascism within our lives impacts everyone no matter the age.
So honestly who's fault is it to enable such widespread fascism in the first place? Our whole ecosystem is basically fascists in disguise, technology crafted to indoctrinate people from their infancy and punish those which stray away.
This is a problem which disregards the root problem and shifts it all on meaningless "generations". Growing up with fascist made technology essentially puts you on the fascist training programme. Of course, even if you didn't - majority of the time they will leave you no other choice than to obey.
For everybody commenting: It is a global study. So whatever you want to say about GenZ in your country will be wrong. It really doesn't matter what younger people in Indonesia are thinking when you're talking about Europe or the US.
Study is here:
And how likely are they to be single? This idea is appealing to husbands but I don't see Gen Z wives hopping on board with this idea.
If anything, Gen Z to-be-wives are more independent and self-realising than any generation before. And I'm all for it.
Well, gosh. This falls right in line with what I've been saying and wondering aloud about things like the Fourth Turning.
The Archie Bunker thing was something boomers stood up to make fun of their parents' generation. That is the kind of thing that all this ginned-up inter-generational warfare that seems largely directed at the boomers (and the Silent Generation and Generation Jones somewhat) seems to miss.
And now we have all these younger "influencers" (barf) doing this kind of thing openly and unironically in the brosphere. The trad wife influencers. And those people and their fans are not the boomers...
It found that gen Z males (born 1997-2012) were twice as likely as baby boomer men (born 1946-1964) to have traditional views on decision-making within a marriage, with just 13% of men in the older cohort agreeing that a wife should always obey her husband. Among women, 18% of gen Z and 6% of baby boomers agreed.
Hmmm okay... So the author states that gen z women are three times more likely to adopt these conservative viewpoints, which means they are being converted at a higher rate than men.
“I think there are a lot of grievances, a lot of fear of men losing social positions,” Chung said. “And there’s a vacuum that’s being filled with rhetoric and voices which are trying to pitch young men against gender equality, against young women, against migrants.”
Such an opportunity for an interesting article examining why, but of course they completely gloss that over and frame it as men being egotistical and gullible.
I just wanna be a house husband.
I think I just figured out why I can't decide if I'm pansexual or finsexual. It's because so many masculine looking guys my age are assholes, so my brain just assumes that all masculine looking guys my age must be assholes, so I've been nearly entirely turned off to all masculine looking guys. I know that good men exist, but it seems like they are few and far between so I tend to just avoid men altogether unless they are gender nonconforming. So basically I've limited myself to femboys and wlw, but I would date a masculine looking guy if he happened to be one of the few who aren't assholes, it's just that they're hard to find.
I also live in a small rural area though, so there's probably a higher percentage of misogynistic assholes here compared to the cities but idk.
Remember that media gives voice to the minority to get clicks, not to inform you.
The difference may be that I live in a city, but almost all people I've come across in my life are genuinely good people. It's hard to imagine that people like Andrew Tate or Nick Fuentes live in the real world. I like to think of it as a separate online world since people like that are few to come by.
To be clear, anyone who endorses this view is not a person. At best, they’re a human animal, and at worst they’re rabid.