Eh, I agree and disagree with the image text. There are similarities, yes, but I wouldn’t view it quite as closely connected as the post implies. Main reason being that there’s a difference between using verbal abuse to control someone’s actions – like what it implies an abusive boyfriend would do to control his gf – and using generally third party reference points to construct an admittedly grim world view for a broad demographic group. The manosphere approach is closer, I’d say, to the marketing done by the women’s beauty industry in this regard.
Ie. there are certain trends / norms that women tend to cycle through, and certain beauty standards that people generally seem to expect from women (without digging in to that!). The beauty industry leverages that and puts out products re-enforcing those norms / helping ppl align to those norms. There are lots of people that find alternative body types attractive, and/or that have more realistic expectations. But if you’re a woman who’s obsessed with beauty trends, it can become an unhealthy obsession leading to potential issues like anorexia.
In that it’s toxic when taken to an extreme, and in that its fundamentals are based in “reality”, the beauty industry’s similar to manosphere rhetoric. The manosphere’s “short guys get no girls” mentality is backed by many short guys experiences with dating (especially online, where they’re pre-filtered!); similarly, a fat girl with lopsided facial features will have difficulty, making the beauty industries products/message more enticing/convincing. They both leverage the generally negative real world experiences of their target audiences to ‘ground’ their message. Both movements also have equatable super stars – “Supermodels”/OnlyFans girls/Twitch Streamers/Whatever who are deemed the most beautiful women, and “Tech bros” who are fathering armies of children and touting right wing eugenics-like ideals.
Mostly pointing this alternative comparison out, because I think there’s a bit of grey on the manosphere stuff. An obsession with beauty standards/industry stuff is unhealthy, but in moderation its ok/beneficial; an obsession with “men’s rights”/“men’s issues” is unhealthy, but in moderation it’s likely a good thing. More guys being more conscious about their health, and getting more exercise, isn’t a bad thing after all – and that’s one of the themes in that manosphere clusterfuck.
Eh, I agree and disagree with the image text. There are similarities, yes, but I wouldn’t view it quite as closely connected as the post implies. Main reason being that there’s a difference between using verbal abuse to control someone’s actions – like what it implies an abusive boyfriend would do to control his gf – and using generally third party reference points to construct an admittedly grim world view for a broad demographic group. The manosphere approach is closer, I’d say, to the marketing done by the women’s beauty industry in this regard.
Ie. there are certain trends / norms that women tend to cycle through, and certain beauty standards that people generally seem to expect from women (without digging in to that!). The beauty industry leverages that and puts out products re-enforcing those norms / helping ppl align to those norms. There are lots of people that find alternative body types attractive, and/or that have more realistic expectations. But if you’re a woman who’s obsessed with beauty trends, it can become an unhealthy obsession leading to potential issues like anorexia.
In that it’s toxic when taken to an extreme, and in that its fundamentals are based in “reality”, the beauty industry’s similar to manosphere rhetoric. The manosphere’s “short guys get no girls” mentality is backed by many short guys experiences with dating (especially online, where they’re pre-filtered!); similarly, a fat girl with lopsided facial features will have difficulty, making the beauty industries products/message more enticing/convincing. They both leverage the generally negative real world experiences of their target audiences to ‘ground’ their message. Both movements also have equatable super stars – “Supermodels”/OnlyFans girls/Twitch Streamers/Whatever who are deemed the most beautiful women, and “Tech bros” who are fathering armies of children and touting right wing eugenics-like ideals.
Mostly pointing this alternative comparison out, because I think there’s a bit of grey on the manosphere stuff. An obsession with beauty standards/industry stuff is unhealthy, but in moderation its ok/beneficial; an obsession with “men’s rights”/“men’s issues” is unhealthy, but in moderation it’s likely a good thing. More guys being more conscious about their health, and getting more exercise, isn’t a bad thing after all – and that’s one of the themes in that manosphere clusterfuck.
This is quite an insightful comment actually, thanks.