Social media algorithms lead to swallowing the red pill

The ten handbell concerts I saw over the last four days were quite wonderful. I’m pleased livestream technology exists so that I could watch them. I got to know Anne Curzan through her weekly That’s What They Say segment on Michigan Public. The series has been going on for 13 years. Through the show I’ve learned a lot about the origin of many words and phrases – this morning’s discussion was about “pet peeves.” Curzan has a PhD in linguistics and has taught at the University of Michigan for at least thirty years. Over the last year the series mentioned Curzan has a new book and I just finished reading it. The book is Say’s Who? A Kinder, Funner Usage Guide for Everyone Who Cares About Words. Yeah, the word “funner” is in the title where I would have expected “more fun.” She has a chapter on that. In each of the 33 chapters she discusses some aspect of modern American English. She delves into the rules of grammar, who said they were rules, and why the rule does, doesn’t, or never did apply. Some of the topics are making verbs from nouns, how “literally” has come to also mean “figuratively,” the difference between “less” and “fewer,” whether “data” can be treated as singular, how to use the semicolon, and when the passive voice is appropriate. In the first chapter she introduces two words: Grammando, a combination of “grammar commando” as the voice in one’s head insisting on the correct bit of grammar. And wordie, the voice that marvels at new ways of using the language, even when the example doesn’t fit in the rules. Our language is always changing. These two voices are frequently at odds in our heads and in what we say to others. Curzan’s general take on grammar battles is: Does the meaning come through? Beyond that, keep your grammando quiet. Yes, there are more formal situations where a writer (and editors) need to be more conscious of the rules. But Curzan shows, in chapter after chapter, many of the “rules” have been out of date for a long time. The most important chapter to me is the one on PC language, the attempts to use a more inclusive language. And here I’ll quote the book:

Debates about language are almost always about more than language. In this case, debates about inclusive and sensitive language are about who has the power to call linguistic shots about what language is and isn’t inclusive and sensitive. It’s fundamentally a power struggle between groups that have historically held most of the political, economic, and social power – what I’m going to call having the biggest microphone – and historically marginalized groups whose voices are becoming more and more centered in the broader public discourse. It’s not that some of the language that today is deemed offensive is newly offensive; it’s that people who have been denigrated by this language have gained more power to call the language out as offensive. They have a bigger microphone than they have had in the past.

Curzan then noted the marginalized people have to be conscious of how they speak because there could be dire consequences. A wrong word could cost a job – or a life. The socially powerful “have had to worry less about consequences – making it seem like freedom of speech is the same as freedom from consequences for getting it wrong.” I found all of this fascinating – until about three-quarters of the way through the book. Then the repetitive nature of the arguments – the explanation of what’s really going on, the check of historical sources, the appeal to a quieter grammando – got to be a bit wearying. All of it was still interesting, but I enjoyed it less. I recommend the book if you are one who cares about words. Lisa Needham of Daily Kos reviewed all the ways Robert Kennedy Jr. is making the various parts of his Department of Health and Human Services have a more difficult time doing their jobs. I’ll let you read the rest and quote just the conclusion:

Fewer safety inspections, fewer guardrails on drug approvals, and conspiracy-fueled attacks on vaccines. Turns out, “Make America Healthy Again” means just the opposite.

And, I thought, “Make America Great Again” also means just the opposite. Nadra Nittle and Mariel Padilla, in an article for The 19th posted on Kos, discussed how easily young male teens on social media get hooked into misogyny. The society as a whole can make these boys feel insecure. Do they measure up to the expected profile of masculinity? Will they grow up to be man enough? They have “insecurities about their physiques, jawlines and even their hair.” So the boys, who feel no one knows them well, go into social media to find out what they can do to be more masculine. They might watch a “gym-bro” video on how to start increasing muscle size They might try videos on “looksmaxxing” to enhance their appearance. From there social media algorithms take over. Rachael Fugardi is a senior research analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, which tracks extremism.

Fugardi said that algorithms force-feed sexism to young people. “So much of this misogynistic content isn’t being searched out,” she said. Research from the United Kingdom revealed that 10 percent of boys ages 11 to 14 encountered harmful content, such as misogyny and violence, within 60 seconds of going online.

The videos might start with guides to gym workouts, or a bit of comedy in ways that rack up page views, but then start slipping in the misogynistic content. Even that might start small, as in the problems of being a weak “beta male” rather than an “alpha male.” And it goes downhill from there, eventually into violence against women. Along the way they are exposed to the claim that feminism curtails men’s rights. “They have swallowed the ‘red pill’ — a manosphere metaphor for embracing a reactionary and male supremacist worldview.” Fitness influencers resonate with the boys because of “Pew Research Center’s finding that 43 percent of teenage boys feel pressure to be physically strong.” Geoff Corey, director of Advocates for Youth’s sex education project AMAZE explained:

They are looking to make friends, to look better, to win over girls or become better people. Then, they discover that it seems like the only people creating content geared towards men are people who give them an easy answer for what they want, and that easy answer somehow leads to trickery, violence, unhealthy behaviors, bottling up emotions.

The counterpart to those videos are the ones promoting “tradwives” or the traditional wife who is quite satisfied with the role of making a wonderful home for her man. The women film themselves whipping up snacks from scratch while wearing stylish outfits with expertly applied makeup.

“Male supremacy appeals to women as well. And, of course, the white supremacist project demands the participation of White women in the production of White babies,” said Pasha Dashtgard, director of research at the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University. The tradwife movement “is for men,” he stressed. “It’s not for women. It’s cosplaying what men think would be the ideal woman.”

Sreshta Erravelli, 17, and who finished 11th grade and thinks the manosphere is nonsense, observed:

Rather than teach that rejection is a part of life, the manosphere links rejection to weakness, causing boys to lash out when girls don’t reciprocate their feelings, she said. “You’re calling girls weird names just because she didn’t give you her number the first 20 times you asked.”

What to do about it? Jessica Berg of Rock Ridge High School in Virginia created a gender studies class that uses history to show students how patriarchy became the norm. She has plenty of recent examples. The class has also taught the young women to advocate for themselves. Dashtgard has created resources to help the public “recognize radicalization before it occurs and engage youth without condemning or humiliating them.” Fugardi wants social media companies to do more to enforce their existing rules on content moderation and demand they protect youth over prioritizing profit. AMAZE has videos that present alternatives to the manosphere. Julie Scelfo, founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction has suggestions for how parents should help their kids. View content with them. If they repeat sexist ideas, ask where they heard them and talk about the meaning of the messages. I’m glad that AMAZE is producing alternative videos. I think more liberal groups need to do the same so that social media algorithms will turn to them as well. Recently I wrote that the 988 National Suicide & Crisis Lifeline will, as of July 17, no longer provide a direct link for LGBTQ (especially the T) to get help from sensitive counselors. That help is currently supplied by the Trevor Project. I’ve since learned that since the Trevor Project is being booted out of the government system it is also losing its government funding, a good size chunk. The Trevor Project will still exist, back to privately funded, to help LGBTQ youth in crisis. Paul Berge drew a cartoon appropriate to the situation. I first saw it in Between the Lines in their previous issue. I normally like to describe cartoons, but this one I won’t because I want you to see the full impact for yourself. Trevor Project LGBTQ Crisis Hotline: 1-866-488-7386 or text START to 678-678