Emboldened 'manosphere' accelerates threats against women

[Neu California]

By CHRISTINE FERNANDO
Updated 8:10 AM PST, November 30, 2024
Share
CHICAGO (AP) — In the days after the presidential election, Sadie Perez began carrying pepper spray with her around campus. Her mom also ordered her and her sister a self-defense kit that included keychain spikes, a hidden knife key and a personal alarm.

It’s a response to an emboldened fringe of right-wing “manosphere” influencers who have seized on Republican Donald Trump ’s presidential win to justify and amplify misogynistic derision and threats online. Many have appropriated a 1960s abortion rights rallying cry, declaring “Your body, my choice” at women online and on college campuses.

For many women, the words represent a worrying harbinger of what might lie ahead as some men perceive the election results as a rebuke of reproductive rights and women’s rights.

“The fact that I feel like I have to carry around pepper spray like this is sad,” said Perez, a 19-year-old political science student in Wisconsin. “Women want and deserve to feel safe.”

Isabelle Frances-Wright, director of technology and society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank focusing on polarization and extremism, said she had seen a “very large uptick in a number of types of misogynistic rhetoric immediately after the election,” including some “extremely violent misogyny.”

“I think many progressive women have been shocked by how quickly and aggressively this rhetoric has gained traction,” she said.

The phrase “Your body, my choice” has been largely attributed to a post on the social platform X from Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust-denying white nationalist and far-right internet personality who dined at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida two years ago. In statements responding to criticism of that event, Trump said he had “never met and knew nothing about” Fuentes before he arrived.


Mary Ruth Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said the phrase transforms the iconic abortion rights slogan into an attack on women’s right to autonomy and a personal threat.

“The implication is that men should have control over or access to sex with women,” said Ziegler, a reproductive rights expert.

Fuentes’ post had 35 million views on X within 24 hours, according to a report by Frances-Wright’s think tank, and the phrase spread rapidly to other social media platforms.

Women on TikTok have reported seeing it inundate their comment sections. The slogan also has made its way offline with boys chanting it in middle schools or men directing it at women on college campuses, according to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue report and social media reports. One mother said her daughter heard the phrase on her college campus three times, the report said.

School districts in Wisconsin and Minnesota have sent notices about the language to parents. T-shirts emblazoned with the phrase were pulled off Amazon.

Perez said she has seen men respond to shared Snapchat stories for their college class with “Your body, my choice.”

“It makes me feel disgusted and infringed upon,” she said. “... It feels like going backwards.”

Misogynistic attacks have been part of the social media landscape for years. But Frances-Wright and others who track online extremism and disinformation said language glorifying violence against women or celebrating the possibility of their rights being stripped away has spiked since the election.

Online declarations for women to “Get back in the kitchen” or to “Repeal the 19th,” a reference to the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote, have spread rapidly. In the days surrounding the election, the extremism think tank found that the top 10 posts on X calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment received more than 4 million views collectively.

A man holding a sign with the words “Women Are Property” sparked an outcry at Texas State University. The man was not a student, faculty or staff, and was escorted off campus, according to the university’s president. The university is “exploring potential legal responses,” he said.

Anonymous rape threats have been left on the TikTok videos of women denouncing the election results. And on the far-flung reaches of the web, 4chan forums have called for “rape squads” and the adoption of policies in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian book and TV series depicting the dehumanization and brutalization of women.

“What was scary here was how quickly this also manifested in offline threats,” Frances-Wright said, emphasizing that online discourse can have real-world impacts.

Previous violent rhetoric on 4chan has been connected to racially motivated and antisemitic attacks, including a 2022 shooting by a white supremacist in Buffalo that killed 10 people. Anti-Asian hate incidents also rose as politicians, including Trump, used words such as “Chinese virus” to describe the COVID-19 pandemic. And Trump’s language targeting Muslims and immigrants in his first campaign correlated with spikes in hate speech and attacks on these groups, Frances-Wright said.

The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism reported similar rhetoric, with “numerous violent misogynistic trends” gaining traction on right-wing platforms such 4chan and spreading to more mainstream ones such as X since the election.

Throughout the presidential race, Trump’s campaign leaned on conservative podcasts and tailored messaging toward disaffected young men. As Trump took the stage at the Republican National Convention over the summer, the song “It’s A Man’s Man’s Man’s World” by James Brown blared from the speakers.

One of several factors to his success this election was modestly boosting his support among men, a shift concentrated among younger voters, according to AP VoteCast, survey of more than 120,000 voters nationwide. But Trump also won support from 44% of women age 18 to 44, according to AP VoteCast.

To some men, Trump’s return to the White House is seen as a vindication, gender and politics experts said. For many young women, the election felt like a referendum on women’s rights and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris ’ loss felt like a rejection of their own rights and autonomy.

“For some of these men, Trump’s victory represents a chance to reclaim a place in society that they think they are losing around these traditional gender roles,” Frances-Wright said.

None of the current online rhetoric is being amplified by Trump or anyone in his immediate orbit. But Trump has a long history of insulting women, and the spike in such language comes after he ran a campaign that was centered on masculinity and repeatedly attacked Harris over her race and gender. His allies and surrogates also used misogynistic language about Harris throughout the campaign.

“With Trump’s victory, many of these men felt like they were heard, they were victorious. They feel that they have potentially a supporter in the White House,” said Dana Brown, executive director of the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics.

Brown said some young men feel they’re victims of discrimination and have expressed mounting resentment for successes of the women’s rights movement, including #MeToo. The tension also has been influenced by socioeconomic struggles.

As women become the majority on college campuses and many professional industries see increasing gender diversity, it has “led to young men scapegoating women and girls, falsely claiming it’s their fault they’re not getting into college anymore as opposed to looking inward,” Brown said.

Perez, the political science student, said she and her sister have been leaning on each other, their mother and other women in their lives to feel safer amid the online vitriol. They text each other to make sure they got home safely. They have girls’ nights to celebrate wins, including a female majority in student government at their campus in the University of Wisconsin system.

“I want to encourage my friends and the women in my life to use their voices to call out this rhetoric and to not let fear take over,” she said.

Ah, misogyny. A force that will never die. Especially with president "grab 'em by the pussy" coming back into office.

So, NSG, where do you think this latest, creepiest, most disturbing wave of misogyny (in my lifetime) will go? And how long will it last?

My opinion is that that it's going to stick around for a while and we'll see an uptick in violence against women, especially when men are throwing around phrases like "Your body, my choice." It's not going to be a pleasant time for women, for the next four year and probably a few years beyond at minimum due to the ability of Republicans to pack the courts.

[Siluvia]

“The fact that I feel like I have to carry around pepper spray like this is sad,” said Perez, a 19-year-old political science student in Wisconsin. “Women want and deserve to feel safe.”

Hmm… I think carrying around pepper spray is a huge overreaction. The “your body my choice” slogan is protected by the First Amendment and I have yet to see a single act of violence associated with the slogan.

Isabelle Frances-Wright, director of technology and society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank focusing on polarization and extremism, said she had seen a “very large uptick in a number of types of misogynistic rhetoric immediately after the election,” including some “extremely violent misogyny.”

Again, where is the proof of this alleged violence? So far, all I have seen has been the peaceful exercise of the right to free speech.

Online declarations for women to “Get back in the kitchen” or to “Repeal the 19th,” a reference to the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote, have spread rapidly. In the days surrounding the election, the extremism think tank found that the top 10 posts on X calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment received more than 4 million views collectively.

Since when is engaging in the constitutional amendment process considered “extremism”? America has had an amendment repealed before; the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment.

Anonymous rape threats have been left on the TikTok videos of women denouncing the election results. And on the far-flung reaches of the web, 4chan forums have called for “rape squads” and the adoption of policies in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian book and TV series depicting the dehumanization and brutalization of women.

“Anonymous TikTok and 4chan comments” really AP? Comments have existed since the beginning of the internet; this isn’t anything new.

The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism reported similar rhetoric, with “numerous violent misogynistic trends” gaining traction on right-wing platforms such 4chan and spreading to more mainstream ones such as X since the election.

They say “numerous trends” yet fail to provide any specific examples.

Throughout the presidential race, Trump’s campaign leaned on conservative podcasts and tailored messaging toward disaffected young men. As Trump took the stage at the Republican National Convention over the summer, the song “It’s A Man’s Man’s Man’s World” by James Brown blared from the speakers.

I watched a few of these podcasts and I’ve got to say, President Trump did an amazing job. He is a trustworthy, honest individual who aims to Make America Great Again; he is not the extremist the mainstream media paints him as. Kamala Harris refused to appear on any podcasts.

To some men, Trump’s return to the White House is seen as a vindication, gender and politics experts said. For many young women, the election felt like a referendum on women’s rights and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris ’ loss felt like a rejection of their own rights and autonomy.

“For some of these men, Trump’s victory represents a chance to reclaim a place in society that they think they are losing around these traditional gender roles,” Frances-Wright said.

It absolutely is a vindication because the silent majority of Americans have spoken and demanded a return to sanity and American Christian values.

None of the current online rhetoric is being amplified by Trump or anyone in his immediate orbit. But Trump has a long history of insulting women, and the spike in such language comes after he ran a campaign that was centered on masculinity and repeatedly attacked Harris over her race and gender. His allies and surrogates also used misogynistic language about Harris throughout the campaign.

This is just an outright lie. Yet again, the AP fails to provide any examples while vaguely and baselessly accusing President Trump of “insulting women”.

Brown said some young men feel they’re victims of discrimination and have expressed mounting resentment for successes of the women’s rights movement, including #MeToo. The tension also has been influenced by socioeconomic struggles.

Young men are victims of discrimination. One example of this is DEI (affirmative action 2.0).

As women become the majority on college campuses and many professional industries see increasing gender diversity, it has “led to young men scapegoating women and girls, falsely claiming it’s their fault they’re not getting into college anymore as opposed to looking inward,” Brown said.

I could go into a long tangent about how the education system is biased in favor of women… Anyway, nobody is being scapegoated; DEI programs clearly do exist and clearly are biased against young men.

So in conclusion, I believe this article is extremely biased (constantly referring to President Trump as a misogynist, while refusing to acknowledge the other side or present an alternative viewpoint). The article also cites almost no evidence and provides no examples, instead using vague words like “some” and “many”. This is unfortunately typical for the AP nowadays.

[Liberal Malaysia]

“The fact that I feel like I have to carry around pepper spray like this is sad,” said Perez, a 19-year-old political science student in Wisconsin. “Women want and deserve to feel safe.”

Hmm… I think carrying around pepper spray is a huge overreaction. The “your body my choice” slogan is protected by the First Amendment and I have yet to see a single act of violence associated with the slogan.

Isabelle Frances-Wright, director of technology and society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank focusing on polarization and extremism, said she had seen a “very large uptick in a number of types of misogynistic rhetoric immediately after the election,” including some “extremely violent misogyny.”

Again, where is the proof of this alleged violence? So far, all I have seen has been the peaceful exercise of the right to free speech.

Online declarations for women to “Get back in the kitchen” or to “Repeal the 19th,” a reference to the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote, have spread rapidly. In the days surrounding the election, the extremism think tank found that the top 10 posts on X calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment received more than 4 million views collectively.

Since when is engaging in the constitutional amendment process considered “extremism”? America has had an amendment repealed before; the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment.

Anonymous rape threats have been left on the TikTok videos of women denouncing the election results. And on the far-flung reaches of the web, 4chan forums have called for “rape squads” and the adoption of policies in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian book and TV series depicting the dehumanization and brutalization of women.

“Anonymous TikTok and 4chan comments” really AP? Comments have existed since the beginning of the internet; this isn’t anything new.

The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism reported similar rhetoric, with “numerous violent misogynistic trends” gaining traction on right-wing platforms such 4chan and spreading to more mainstream ones such as X since the election.

They say “numerous trends” yet fail to provide any specific examples.

Throughout the presidential race, Trump’s campaign leaned on conservative podcasts and tailored messaging toward disaffected young men. As Trump took the stage at the Republican National Convention over the summer, the song “It’s A Man’s Man’s Man’s World” by James Brown blared from the speakers.

I watched a few of these podcasts and I’ve got to say, President Trump did an amazing job. He is a trustworthy, honest individual who aims to Make America Great Again; he is not the extremist the mainstream media paints him as. Kamala Harris refused to appear on any podcasts.

To some men, Trump’s return to the White House is seen as a vindication, gender and politics experts said. For many young women, the election felt like a referendum on women’s rights and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris ’ loss felt like a rejection of their own rights and autonomy.

“For some of these men, Trump’s victory represents a chance to reclaim a place in society that they think they are losing around these traditional gender roles,” Frances-Wright said.

It absolutely is a vindication because the silent majority of Americans have spoken and demanded a return to sanity and American Christian values.

None of the current online rhetoric is being amplified by Trump or anyone in his immediate orbit. But Trump has a long history of insulting women, and the spike in such language comes after he ran a campaign that was centered on masculinity and repeatedly attacked Harris over her race and gender. His allies and surrogates also used misogynistic language about Harris throughout the campaign.

This is just an outright lie. Yet again, the AP fails to provide any examples while vaguely and baselessly accusing President Trump of “insulting women”.

Brown said some young men feel they’re victims of discrimination and have expressed mounting resentment for successes of the women’s rights movement, including #MeToo. The tension also has been influenced by socioeconomic struggles.

Young men are victims of discrimination. One example of this is DEI (affirmative action 2.0).

As women become the majority on college campuses and many professional industries see increasing gender diversity, it has “led to young men scapegoating women and girls, falsely claiming it’s their fault they’re not getting into college anymore as opposed to looking inward,” Brown said.

I could go into a long tangent about how the education system is biased in favor of women… Anyway, nobody is being scapegoated; DEI programs clearly do exist and clearly are biased against young men.

So in conclusion, I believe this article is extremely biased (constantly referring to President Trump as a misogynist, while refusing to acknowledge the other side or present an alternative viewpoint). The article also cites almost no evidence and provides no examples, instead using vague words like “some” and “many”. This is unfortunately typical for the AP nowadays.

This takedown of progressive legacy media navel-gazing is epic. AP has no moral credibility, let alone a monopoly on the truth.

They cite "some progressive women" feeling "unsafe" on college campuses (rich white progressive women have never been safer) and expect us to take their word for it, while men who complain about actual inequality (child custody, lack of due process, affirmative action) are told to "look inward". The article bemoans the fact that freedom of speech goes both ways and includes speech they don't like.

Liberal misandrists in their elitist cocoons of virtue continue to demonize men and belittle Trump supporters. Maybe they need to look inward and reflect on exactly why it is that Harris lost instead of hiding behind labels and namecalling.

AP, like MSNBC, is reporting opinions as fact and making a mountain out of a fringe, far-right molehill that has never gone beyond being fringe. The media is widely seen as an extension of the DNC and this article is yet more proof of this. Expect the BBC and other foreign media outlets to blindly parrot their anti-Trump line for the next four years. Keep crying wolf and watch your viewer and reader numbers plummet.

As for these elitist, circlejerking propaganda "think tanks", folks at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism should get real jobs. They're part of the censorship-industrial complex.

[Slembana]

Hmm… I think carrying around pepper spray is a huge overreaction. The “your body my choice” slogan is protected by the First Amendment and I have yet to see a single act of violence associated with the slogan.


Again, where is the proof of this alleged violence? So far, all I have seen has been the peaceful exercise of the right to free speech.


Since when is engaging in the constitutional amendment process considered “extremism”? America has had an amendment repealed before; the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment.


“Anonymous TikTok and 4chan comments” really AP? Comments have existed since the beginning of the internet; this isn’t anything new.


They say “numerous trends” yet fail to provide any specific examples.


I watched a few of these podcasts and I’ve got to say, President Trump did an amazing job. He is a trustworthy, honest individual who aims to Make America Great Again; he is not the extremist the mainstream media paints him as. Kamala Harris refused to appear on any podcasts.


It absolutely is a vindication because the silent majority of Americans have spoken and demanded a return to sanity and American Christian values.


This is just an outright lie. Yet again, the AP fails to provide any examples while vaguely and baselessly accusing President Trump of “insulting women”.


Young men are victims of discrimination. One example of this is DEI (affirmative action 2.0).


I could go into a long tangent about how the education system is biased in favor of women… Anyway, nobody is being scapegoated; DEI programs clearly do exist and clearly are biased against young men.

So in conclusion, I believe this article is extremely biased (constantly referring to President Trump as a misogynist, while refusing to acknowledge the other side or present an alternative viewpoint). The article also cites almost no evidence and provides no examples, instead using vague words like “some” and “many”. This is unfortunately typical for the AP nowadays.

This takedown of progressive legacy media navel-gazing is epic. AP has no moral credibility, let alone a monopoly on the truth.

They cite "some progressive women" feeling "unsafe" on college campuses (rich white progressive women have never been safer) and expect us to take their word for it, while men who complain about actual inequality (child custody, lack of due process, affirmative action) are told to "look inward". The article bemoans the fact that freedom of speech goes both ways and includes speech they don't like.

Liberal misandrists in their elitist cocoons of virtue continue to demonize men and belittle Trump supporters. Maybe they need to look inward and reflect on exactly why it is that Harris lost instead of hiding behind labels and namecalling.

AP, like MSNBC, is reporting opinions as fact and making a mountain out of a fringe, far-right molehill that has never gone beyond being fringe. The media is widely seen as an extension of the DNC and this article is yet more proof of this. Expect the BBC and other foreign media outlets to blindly parrot their anti-Trump line for the next four years. Keep crying wolf and watch your viewer and reader numbers plummet.

As for these elitist, circlejerking propaganda "think tanks", folks at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism should get real jobs. They're part of the censorship-industrial complex.

This is NOT freedom of speech. This is a bunch of men who are spreading actual hatred towards women and threading to rape them. Women genuinely feel threatened, and I don’t blame them. As a man, I feel ashamed of my gender.

[Neu California]

“The fact that I feel like I have to carry around pepper spray like this is sad,” said Perez, a 19-year-old political science student in Wisconsin. “Women want and deserve to feel safe.”

Hmm… I think carrying around pepper spray is a huge overreaction. The “your body my choice” slogan is protected by the First Amendment and I have yet to see a single act of violence associated with the slogan.

If you don't see it, then it's not happening is a hell of a take. Also, "I can legally say it" is an equally piss poor defense.

Isabelle Frances-Wright, director of technology and society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank focusing on polarization and extremism, said she had seen a “very large uptick in a number of types of misogynistic rhetoric immediately after the election,” including some “extremely violent misogyny.”

Again, where is the proof of this alleged violence? So far, all I have seen has been the peaceful exercise of the right to free speech.

Look up intimidation and related concepts like dehumanization and discrimination. Just because there haven't been attacks you've heard about doesn't mean that this rhetoric is not damaging.

Online declarations for women to “Get back in the kitchen” or to “Repeal the 19th,” a reference to the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote, have spread rapidly. In the days surrounding the election, the extremism think tank found that the top 10 posts on X calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment received more than 4 million views collectively.

Since when is engaging in the constitutional amendment process considered “extremism”? America has had an amendment repealed before; the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment.

So, you support repealing the right of women to vote (edit: and don't see denying half the voting populace their right to vote as extreme) then? Because that's what I'm getting.

Anonymous rape threats have been left on the TikTok videos of women denouncing the election results. And on the far-flung reaches of the web, 4chan forums have called for “rape squads” and the adoption of policies in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian book and TV series depicting the dehumanization and brutalization of women.

“Anonymous TikTok and 4chan comments” really AP? Comments have existed since the beginning of the internet; this isn’t anything new.

Doesn't make these comments any less disgusting or disturbing. You keep falling back on "there's no legal barrier to saying these things" as a defense, which ignores the psychological and sociological aspects of these comments.

The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism reported similar rhetoric, with “numerous violent misogynistic trends” gaining traction on right-wing platforms such 4chan and spreading to more mainstream ones such as X since the election.

They say “numerous trends” yet fail to provide any specific examples.

I'm going to trust the organization that monitors these things, thank you. Unless you can prove them wrong, I'll trust the experts.

Throughout the presidential race, Trump’s campaign leaned on conservative podcasts and tailored messaging toward disaffected young men. As Trump took the stage at the Republican National Convention over the summer, the song “It’s A Man’s Man’s Man’s World” by James Brown blared from the speakers.

I watched a few of these podcasts and I’ve got to say, President Trump did an amazing job. He is a trustworthy, honest individual who aims to Make America Great Again; he is not the extremist the mainstream media paints him as. Kamala Harris refused to appear on any podcasts.

Trump a trustworthy, honest individual? The convicted felon?

To some men, Trump’s return to the White House is seen as a vindication, gender and politics experts said. For many young women, the election felt like a referendum on women’s rights and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris ’ loss felt like a rejection of their own rights and autonomy.

“For some of these men, Trump’s victory represents a chance to reclaim a place in society that they think they are losing around these traditional gender roles,” Frances-Wright said.

It absolutely is a vindication because the silent majority of Americans have spoken and demanded a return to sanity and American Christian values.

America should not focus on "Christian values" From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by congress in 1797 and never repealed: "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

American Christian Values is an oxymoron.

None of the current online rhetoric is being amplified by Trump or anyone in his immediate orbit. But Trump has a long history of insulting women, and the spike in such language comes after he ran a campaign that was centered on masculinity and repeatedly attacked Harris over her race and gender. His allies and surrogates also used misogynistic language about Harris throughout the campaign.

This is just an outright lie. Yet again, the AP fails to provide any examples while vaguely and baselessly accusing President Trump of “insulting women”.

Prove that it's an outright lie. I trust the AP far more than I trust you.

Brown said some young men feel they’re victims of discrimination and have expressed mounting resentment for successes of the women’s rights movement, including #MeToo. The tension also has been influenced by socioeconomic struggles.

Young men are victims of discrimination. One example of this is DEI (affirmative action 2.0).

Yes, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, concepts that are themselves based on anti-discrimination, are discriminatory.

As women become the majority on college campuses and many professional industries see increasing gender diversity, it has “led to young men scapegoating women and girls, falsely claiming it’s their fault they’re not getting into college anymore as opposed to looking inward,” Brown said.

I could go into a long tangent about how the education system is biased in favor of women… Anyway, nobody is being scapegoated; DEI programs clearly do exist and clearly are biased against young men.

And I assume you have some evidence from sources that aren't biased so far to the right as to be horrifically untrustworthy that this is the case? Because, guess what? I've never seen any evidence that this is the case. Just the ramblings of far-right nutjobs that hate that they're no longer in charge.

So in conclusion, I believe this article is extremely biased (constantly referring to President Trump as a misogynist, while refusing to acknowledge the other side or present an alternative viewpoint). The article also cites almost no evidence and provides no examples, instead using vague words like “some” and “many”. This is unfortunately typical for the AP nowadays.

So, in conclusion, you don't like what a highly respected, highly trusted news agency is reporting, and you choose to dismiss it without any evidence of your own, simply insisting that it's wrong, and making yourself look ridiculous in the process. This is unfortunately typical of the anti-fact right nowadays.

TL;DR: Show that they're actually wrong. Your insistence that they are is meaningless without a solid basis in fact.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oh no, not the bloke blob.

[Ifreann]

“The fact that I feel like I have to carry around pepper spray like this is sad,” said Perez, a 19-year-old political science student in Wisconsin. “Women want and deserve to feel safe.”

Hmm… I think carrying around pepper spray is a huge overreaction. The “your body my choice” slogan is protected by the First Amendment and I have yet to see a single act of violence associated with the slogan.

The fact that it's legal for men to say that they want to control women's bodies against their will and take away women's rights doesn't mean women have to sit there and do nothing to defend themselves until the violence actually starts.

[Neu California]

I just want to point this out again: Neither Siluvia nor Liberal Malaysia see anything extreme or problematic about denying women their constitutional right to vote, based on their posts. That's what repealing the 19th amendment would do, and they took absolutely no issue with the idea of doing so.

[Washington Resistance Army]

CHICAGO (AP) — In the days after the presidential election, Sadie Perez began carrying pepper spray with her around campus. Her mom also ordered her and her sister a self-defense kit that included keychain spikes, a hidden knife key and a personal alarm.

Women will do anything and everything except buy a gun.

[Palmyrion]

CHICAGO (AP) — In the days after the presidential election, Sadie Perez began carrying pepper spray with her around campus. Her mom also ordered her and her sister a self-defense kit that included keychain spikes, a hidden knife key and a personal alarm.

Women will do anything and everything except buy a gun.

Why did she shoot him? He was an honorable man with a promising career, why did she shoot him over an assumption that he was going to rape her?

[Liberal Malaysia]

I just want to point this out again: Neither Siluvia nor Liberal Malaysia see anything extreme or problematic about denying women their constitutional right to vote, based on their posts. That's what repealing the 19th amendment would do, and they took absolutely no issue with the idea of doing so.

No, I said the legacy media is making a mountain out of a far-right molehill and nobody trusts them anymore. This is pure liberal cope. America is not a Muslim country and won't be for the foreseeable future thanks to Donald Trump's election victory. The rights of American women will continue to be protected, unlike the rights of women in the Muslim world.

But keep demonizing men and MAGA supporters and see where it gets you. Try to look beyond your liberal college elitist bubble if you can, or get used to not running the country.

[Pale Dawn]

I just want to point this out again: Neither Siluvia nor Liberal Malaysia see anything extreme or problematic about denying women their constitutional right to vote, based on their posts. That's what repealing the 19th amendment would do, and they took absolutely no issue with the idea of doing so.

Can you point to where they endorsed repealing the 19th? Not bothering to contradict an irrelevant point of fearmongering isn't the same as endorsing said point. That being said i would be interested to see the quote

[Mettaton-EX]

guess i gotta post this again for the "um it's just free speech" dweebs:

Unlike the accusations regarding trigger warnings and safe spaces, the suggestion that the prohibition of hate speech violates the right to free speech is at least not completely frivolous. I think this is worth taking seriously. Now hate speech prohibitions exist at three levels. At the highest level there’s legal restrictions, such as the laws against displaying Nazi imagery which have enabled Nazis to get some of my anti-Nazi videos blocked in much of Europe.

Speaking as a freedom-loving ’Murican, I find these laws clearly in violation of what the right to free speech protects. I mean, what, the Fuhrer’s gonna make it illegal to display a swastika now? What is this, Nazi Germany?

At the middle level there’s institutional prohibitions, such as those prohibiting hate speech in particular settings such as workplaces or universities. These I think are generally quite a good idea, and I’ll explain why in a moment.

At the bottom level there are social restrictions. For instance, there’s a lot of social pressure in certain communities not to be racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on.

And although not formal rules, these norms can have a silencing effect, and place a de facto limitation on the things people are willing to say. For instance, conservatives and classical liberals are constantly complaining to me about how the words “transphobe,” “racist,” “Islamophobe,” and so on are being used to silence them. And in a sense they’re kind of right. I mean, people are saying those things to you because they want you to stop saying what you’re saying.

But of course, this is pretty microscopic as far as restrictions on free speech go. So, I guess you might say it’s like a kind of free speech microaggression, right? And that is what it is. It’s a subtle, indirect way of trying to get you not to say a certain thing. So great! I wanna congratulate conservatives on independently discovering the idea of microaggressions. But! If you’re willing to grant that words like “Islamophobia” can have a subtle silencing effect, you should also be willing to grant that small acts of sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on can likewise suppress the speech of marginalized people.

For instance: I constantly hear from women, trans and gender non-conforming people that they’ve thought about making YouTube videos, but they just don’t want to deal with the hate, the trolls, the constant misogyny and attacks on gender identity, the public shaming in “Genderqueer and Feminist Cringe Compilations,” and so they just avoid speaking up on YouTube altogether.

So, in a sense, these people are being silenced by the misogynistic and transphobic atmosphere, in the same way that your average YouTube shitlord would probably feel pretty alone and silenced in a gender studies class with 19 women complaining about sexist men.

Now, when I bring this up with classical liberals, they uniformly respond, “If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. The Internet’s just like that. Why can’t you just deal with it?” To which I respond, why can’t you just deal with being called a racist on college campuses? Academia’s just like that. And whatever you say to that, there’s the answer to your question.

So, if you adopt a sophisticated view of what free speech means, you have to contend with the following contradictory situation: there are many instances where you have to choose between suppressing one person’s speech or another’s.

The fact is that there is no true neutral when it comes to free speech. It’s literally impossible to protect all speech equally, because some forms of speech tend to dampen other forms of speech.

So there comes a point where you have to choose whose side you’re on. In this case, do you want to defend the speech of misogynists or the speech of women? Homophobes and transphobes or queer people? Racists or people of color? And I’m not talking about passing laws here, I’m talking about establishing norms of discourse.

And what I notice about you, Dave, and about much of your audience, is that you only seem to rush to stand up for the right of people not to be silenced by the threat of slurs like and “racist” or “transphobe”and in fact you present the topic like it’s the most important political issue in the world right now.

But on the subject of how bigoted attitudes and speech may silence people of color, women, queer people, and other marginalized groups, you seem to have absolutely nothing to say. There’s endless catastrophizing from classical liberals on YouTube and elsewhere about how policies prohibiting transphobia in the workplace, including intentional misgendering, are a terrible limitation on the freedom of speech of transphobes. But these same people give no concern whatsoever to the way in which a hostile environment where, for instance, a trans employee’s identity is constantly disregarded and disparaged, might itself have a silencing effect itself, if it doesn’t pressure trans people out of the workplace altogether.

And I can’t help but look at this and conclude that you’ve taken a side in an ideological battle, while pretending all the way that you’re simply standing up for the supposedly neutral value of free speech.

Well, don’t think we don’t notice which instances of speech you choose to defend.

[Neu California]

I just want to point this out again: Neither Siluvia nor Liberal Malaysia see anything extreme or problematic about denying women their constitutional right to vote, based on their posts. That's what repealing the 19th amendment would do, and they took absolutely no issue with the idea of doing so.

Can you point to where they endorsed repealing the 19th? Not bothering to contradict an irrelevant point of fearmongering isn't the same as endorsing said point. That being said i would be interested to see the quote

Maybe I went a little far in saying endorsed, but this is, IMO, as far from a condemnation as you can get without getting into openly supportive territory:

Online declarations for women to “Get back in the kitchen” or to “Repeal the 19th,” a reference to the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote, have spread rapidly. In the days surrounding the election, the extremism think tank found that the top 10 posts on X calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment received more than 4 million views collectively.

Since when is engaging in the constitutional amendment process considered “extremism”? America has had an amendment repealed before; the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment.

The most generous reading is that they think repealing an amendment period is not extreme, and didn't bother considering what the effects of repealing the amendment would be.

[Palmyrion]

I just want to point this out again: Neither Siluvia nor Liberal Malaysia see anything extreme or problematic about denying women their constitutional right to vote, based on their posts. That's what repealing the 19th amendment would do, and they took absolutely no issue with the idea of doing so.

No, I said the legacy media is making a mountain out of a far-right molehill and nobody trusts them anymore. This is pure liberal cope. America is not a Muslim country and won't be for the foreseeable future thanks to Donald Trump's election victory. The rights of American women will continue to be protected, unlike the rights of women in the Muslim world.

But keep demonizing men and MAGA supporters and see where it gets you. Try to look beyond your liberal college elitist bubble if you can, or get used to not running the country.

Just because America is (purportedly) a Christian country - or, on the other hand, not a Muslim country in this case - doesn't mean women's rights aren't off the chopping block.

Women's rights will be on the chopping block and will be butchered thanks to Donald Trump's election victory; in particular, the "repeal the 19th" and "your body my choice" sentiments you dismiss as a "far right molehill" is a growing molehill. It may be a molehill now, but in 4 years it's Mt. Everest.

[Galloism]

1. “The manosphere” is approximately as relevant a grouping as “Asians”.
2. Since when did TikTok and 4chan become part of the “manosphere”?
3. It is a fact that men have been subject to education discrimination for around a half century. We’ve gone through the studies on NS multiple times.
4. “Some people are saying awful things” is certainly worth talking about, but hardly a crisis. There’s no statistics cited in the OP, just fear mongering anecdotes. Given the last few decades of women saying “the future is female” and “kill all men” (both of which are literal genocidal aims), please excuse me while I dismiss your pearl clutching based on random anecdotes as being exactly what it is: pearl clutching.

[Liberal Malaysia]

No, I said the legacy media is making a mountain out of a far-right molehill and nobody trusts them anymore. This is pure liberal cope. America is not a Muslim country and won't be for the foreseeable future thanks to Donald Trump's election victory. The rights of American women will continue to be protected, unlike the rights of women in the Muslim world.

But keep demonizing men and MAGA supporters and see where it gets you. Try to look beyond your liberal college elitist bubble if you can, or get used to not running the country.

Just because America is (purportedly) a Christian country - or, on the other hand, not a Muslim country in this case - doesn't mean women's rights aren't off the chopping block.

Women's rights will be on the chopping block and will be butchered thanks to Donald Trump's election victory; in particular, the "repeal the 19th" and "your body my choice" sentiments you dismiss as a "far right molehill" is a growing molehill. It may be a molehill now, but in 4 years it's Mt. Everest.

What they said eight years ago. You might've convinced me then. You won't convince me now. It's straight-up media gaslighting, disinformation and demonization.

As for women's rights, "Kamala Harris is for they/them. Donald Trump is for you". Dems fixated on the wrong women's rights issue, not realizing that most women aren't single-issue NPCs. I give the red states ten years from the repeal of Roe to legalize abortion access.

[Nanocyberia]

Throughout the presidential race, Trump’s campaign leaned on conservative podcasts and tailored messaging toward disaffected young men. As Trump took the stage at the Republican National Convention over the summer, the song “It’s A Man’s Man’s Man’s World” by James Brown blared from the speakers.

I watched a few of these podcasts and I’ve got to say, President Trump did an amazing job. He is a trustworthy, honest individual who aims to Make America Great Again; he is not the extremist the mainstream media paints him as. Kamala Harris refused to appear on any podcasts.

Trump appearing on a podcast doesn't make him trustworthy or honest (people who become proficient at lying end up being better able to hide when they're lying); Harris not appearing on one doesn't make her a liar...

To some men, Trump’s return to the White House is seen as a vindication, gender and politics experts said. For many young women, the election felt like a referendum on women’s rights and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris ’ loss felt like a rejection of their own rights and autonomy.

“For some of these men, Trump’s victory represents a chance to reclaim a place in society that they think they are losing around these traditional gender roles,” Frances-Wright said.

It absolutely is a vindication because the silent majority of Americans have spoken and demanded a return to sanity and American Christian values.

There's a contradiction in terms if I've ever seen one: "sanity" and "American Christian values"? If there's one thing that religion fails at, it's sanity. Heresy and dogma, however, usually result from extensive brainwashing... People losing their minds because someone dared to deviate, even a tiny bit, from tradition.
The world has been able to progress in various ways precisely because people dared to do things differently, and without being burned at the stake...
And that's leaving aside the fact that moral values are subjective anyway... What one person might consider "moral" could very well be viewed as absurd by someone else...

Just remember that structures like the ancient library of Alexandria, once an important hub of knowledge, were destroyed by fanatical lunatics who didn't appreciate most of what they contained.
So, the risk with the USA these days is just that: a team of anti-science airheads that could easily, and willingly, undo centuries of technological and scientific progress in a matter of years, all because of a misguided attempt at a "return to sanity"... And having a tool like the Internet to quickly convey certain ideas worldwide is all the more worrying...

Even a European living in Europe, I'm concerned about Trump being in charge of the US...

[Galloism]

Women will do anything and everything except buy a gun.

Why did she shoot him? He was an honorable man with a promising career, why did she shoot him over an assumption that he was going to rape her?

Women receive preferential treatment by the justice system in a huge way based on gender (in fact, gender gaps are bigger than race gaps, even when measuring similar crimes).

Your fear mongering here is literally irrational. It applies way more to men than women.

[Liberal Malaysia]

1. “The manosphere” is approximately as relevant a grouping as “Asians”.
2. Since when did TikTok and 4chan become part of the “manosphere”?
3. It is a fact that men have been subject to education discrimination for around a half century. We’ve gone through the studies on NS multiple times.
4. “Some people are saying awful things” is certainly worth talking about, but hardly a crisis. There’s no statistics cited in the OP, just fear mongering anecdotes. Given the last few decades of women saying “the future is female” and “kill all men” (both of which are literal genocidal aims), please excuse me while I dismiss your pearl clutching based on random anecdotes as being exactly what it is: pearl clutching.

Not to mention that the same liberals who claim to be for women's rights have denied, minimized and excused the rape of Jewish Israeli women on Oct. 7. It's purely just performative grandstanding. Manipulative crocodile tears are what the authors of the article cited by the OP are shedding.

[Neu California]

1. “The manosphere” is approximately as relevant a grouping as “Asians”.

Nope.

The manosphere is a diverse collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting masculinity, misogyny, and opposition to feminism.[1] Communities within the manosphere include men's rights activists (MRAs),[2] incels (involuntary celibates),[3] Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW),[4] pick-up artists (PUA),[5] and fathers' rights groups.[6] While the specifics of each group's beliefs sometimes conflict, they are generally united in the belief that society is biased against men due to the influence of feminism, and that feminists promote misandry, or hatred of men.[7] Acceptance of these ideas is described as "taking the red pill", a metaphor borrowed from the film The Matrix.[8]

2. Since when did TikTok and 4chan become part of the “manosphere”?

Since people from the manosphere started promoting their views there.

3. It is a fact that men have been subject to education discrimination for around a half century. We’ve gone through the studies on NS multiple times.

The only time I recall that happening was when Ostro promoted the idea that women should be paid less because one study said that their grades may have been inflated in school. Of note is the fact that no one bothered to defend that argument after that post.

4. “Some people are saying awful things” is certainly worth talking about, but hardly a crisis. There’s no statistics cited in the OP, just fear mongering anecdotes. Given the last few decades of women saying “the future is female” and “kill all men” (both of which are literal genocidal aims), please excuse me while I dismiss your pearl clutching based on random anecdotes as being exactly what it is: pearl clutching.

Again, I'm going to trust the AP more than I'm going to trust the man who keeps pushing the Galileo fallacy for why we shouldn't use the term toxic masculinity and obviously has a strong bias against women and likes to paint them in the worst possible light.

And show us the evidence that any large, politically relevant bloc of women have been saying “the future is female” and “kill all men.” At least to the extent suggested that men are doing to women in this article.

[Palmyrion]

Why did she shoot him? He was an honorable man with a promising career, why did she shoot him over an assumption that he was going to rape her?

Women receive preferential treatment by the justice system in a huge way based on gender (in fact, gender gaps are bigger than race gaps, even when measuring similar crimes).

Your fear mongering here is literally irrational. It applies way more to men than women.

To think that prospective justified homicide cases would preferentially favor women is wishful thinking when the justice system is suffering from an immense backlog of rape cases.

Just because America is (purportedly) a Christian country - or, on the other hand, not a Muslim country in this case - doesn't mean women's rights aren't off the chopping block.

Women's rights will be on the chopping block and will be butchered thanks to Donald Trump's election victory; in particular, the "repeal the 19th" and "your body my choice" sentiments you dismiss as a "far right molehill" is a growing molehill. It may be a molehill now, but in 4 years it's Mt. Everest.

What they said eight years ago. You might've convinced me then. You won't convince me now. It's straight-up media gaslighting, disinformation and demonization.

As for women's rights, "Kamala Harris is for they/them. Donald Trump is for you". Dems fixated on the wrong women's rights issue, not realizing that most women aren't single-issue NPCs. I give the red states ten years from the repeal of Roe to legalize abortion access.

"What they said 8y ago" is still true now, in fact much truer than it was. It was a much smaller molehill then.

"As for women's rights"
>Kamala Harris is for they/them. Donald Trump is for you
>I give the red states ten years from the repeal of Roe to legalize abortion access
>I give the red states ten years from the repeal of Roe to legalize abortion access
>I give the red states ten years from the repeal of Roe to legalize abortion access
>I give the red states ten years from the repeal of Roe to legalize abortion access
>I give the red states ten years from the repeal of Roe to legalize abortion access



If you lose that bet, you drink 1000 bottles of diddy oil.

[Terruana]

There definitely seems to be an uptick in misogynist rhetoric online (or at least, more of it is filtering through to the mainstream from dregs of the Internet like 4chan).

Fortunately, I've not seen this translate into physical violence yet, but then I also don't live in a country that just elected a president who has been (convincingly) accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women on multiple occasions throughout his life.

Having said that, it seems inevitable that normalising these sorts of misogynistic attitudes towards women is going to lead to increased violence against women and girls.

So yeah, to sum up, things are going to get worse before they get better, and I feel incredibly sorry for all the women out there who are facing this incredibly terrifying prospect. I hope the decent people of the world do everything they can to challenge this kind of hate speech.

[Galloism]

1. “The manosphere” is approximately as relevant a grouping as “Asians”.

Nope.

The manosphere is a diverse collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting masculinity, misogyny, and opposition to feminism.[1] Communities within the manosphere include men's rights activists (MRAs),[2] incels (involuntary celibates),[3] Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW),[4] pick-up artists (PUA),[5] and fathers' rights groups.[6] While the specifics of each group's beliefs sometimes conflict, they are generally united in the belief that society is biased against men due to the influence of feminism, and that feminists promote misandry, or hatred of men.[7] Acceptance of these ideas is described as "taking the red pill", a metaphor borrowed from the film The Matrix.[8]

Always my favorite definition - because MRAs and Red Pillers have completely divergent worldviews and also hate each other. Similar with MGTOW and pick-up artists, who have completely different worldviews and hate each other. Father's rights groups are single issue people who care about the discrimination in the family court system.

The notion that a group can be defined by "society is biased against men" (observable reality) and that at least some feminists promote misandry or hatred of men (also observable fact) does not a grouping make. If that's a grouping, then I'd like to declare anyone who has ever thought that a man raped by a woman shouldn't receive justice, and declare that's the womenosphere.

(Because, you know, women's rights campaigners who made sure that men had no justice from the law when they protested and took away gender neutral rape in India)

2. Since when did TikTok and 4chan become part of the “manosphere”?

Since people from the manosphere started promoting their views there.

Laughable. Tiktok's userbase is almost perfectly evenly split by gender. 4chan has no reliable statistics because its structure.

3. It is a fact that men have been subject to education discrimination for around a half century. We’ve gone through the studies on NS multiple times.

The only time I recall that happening was when Ostro promoted the idea that women should be paid less because one study said that their grades may have been inflated in school. Of note is the fact that no one bothered to defend that argument after that post.

There's been several. The OECD studied across pretty much the entire western world and found the following:

Girls and socio-economically advantaged students are more likely to receive better marks, even when compared to boys and
socio-economically disadvantaged students who perform equally well in reading and have similar attitudes and behaviours.

Girls are more likely to receive better marks than boys in most countries and economies, even when they have similar reading
performance and learning habits. The exceptions to this trend are Iceland, Portugal (lower secondary), Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago,
while girls are especially more likely to receive higher marks in Poland and the Slovak Republic. When comparing students of
similar performance, habits and attitudes, students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to receive
lower marks in most countries and economies, with the exceptions of Belgium (Flemish Community) and Croatia. This relationship
is strongest in Iceland.

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/gr ... ,degree%20–%20regardless%20of%20what%20those

A separate study here found the same thing, and separate paper actually looked into this phenomenon and how those marks are cumulative over years, resulting in substantial underachievement of boys over time as they are discriminated against repeatedly year after year.

4. “Some people are saying awful things” is certainly worth talking about, but hardly a crisis. There’s no statistics cited in the OP, just fear mongering anecdotes. Given the last few decades of women saying “the future is female” and “kill all men” (both of which are literal genocidal aims), please excuse me while I dismiss your pearl clutching based on random anecdotes as being exactly what it is: pearl clutching.

Again, I'm going to trust the AP more than I'm going to trust the man who keeps pushing the Galileo fallacy for why we shouldn't use the term toxic masculinity

Well, it is a hate term, taken as a hate term by the people when we polled them, and has its origin in the mythopoetic men's movement where it's creation was specifically to push back against the feminization of men and endorse men go back towards their more traditional masculinity.

Whether or not a term is a hate term is defined by the general public. The general public says toxic masculinity is a hateful term. The N word was not thought as hateful for many years, but now it is - similarly, the fact that "toxic masculinity" was possibly not always thought of as a hate term when it currently is is irrelevant.

That's not a galileo fantasy.

It's current reality. and obviously has a strong bias against women and likes to paint them in the worst possible light.

Women are painted in the best light by our society. In fact, when using IAT testing, gender biases in favor of women are stronger than both class and race biases.

And show us the evidence that any large, politically relevant bloc of women have been saying “the future is female” and “kill all men.” At least to the extent suggested that men are doing to women in this article.

First, you show me a large politically relevant bloc of men saying "your body, my choice". You provided random anecdotes and acted like it's a crisis. So if you want me to prove a large politically relevant bloc of women have been saying "the future is female" and "kill all men", then you start first with the "your body, my choice" thing. Your own source states explicitly that Trump and his campaign and transition has NOT been boosting that message.

[Galloism]

To think that prospective justified homicide cases would preferentially favor women is wishful thinking when the justice system is suffering from an immense backlog of rape cases.

The system doesn't even prosecute millions of rape cases against men, because they're predominantly committed by women and they turn away the victims at the police department by threatening them with filing a false report or wasting police time.

Men are treated *even worse* than women when it comes to rape.

And this is true when it comes to things like justified homicide too.