Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencers

“As soon as I mention feminism, you can feel the shift in the room; they’re shuffling in their seats.” Mike Nicholson holds workshops with teenage boys about the challenges of impending manhood. Standing up for the sisterhood, it seems, is the last thing on their minds.

When Nicholson says he is a feminist himself, “I can see them look at me, like, ‘I used to like you.’”

Once Nicholson, whose programme is called Progressive Masculinity, unpacks the fact that feminism means equal rights and opportunities for women, many of the boys with whom he works are won over.

“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,” he says.

But he is battling against what he calls a “dominance-based model” of masculinity. “These old-fashioned, regressive ideas are having a renaissance, through your masculinity influencers – your grifters, like Andrew Tate.”

  • AVincentInSpace
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Not necessarily. If it only applies to sites with algorithmic feeds (i.e. specifically ones that serve individualized streams to each user based on what they specifically have liked in the past), companies who choose to be in control of what content they show are held to account and smaller platforms are safe.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Or do what the EU did with the DMA.

      Write a law specifically for megacorps and only megacorps. It’s possible and it works.

      • AVincentInSpace
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not if algorithmic feeds are defined as ones that show individualized feeds to each user, like I said in my comment

            • Herbal Gamer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah, the definition in the law would have to be based on what constitutes an algorithm. That’s what I meant, doofus

              • AVincentInSpace
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                What specific algorithms the law applies to does not have to be all pieces of code that could be conceivably classed as an “algorithm”. The law can use a different word if it makes you feel better