“Are there any other male friendly subs on here?” - online men’s rights groups as simultaneous communities of care and hate, inclusion and exclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online communities provide spaces and places where (almost) anyone can find like-minded others. This is true of many digital leisure spaces and is especially true for men’s rights and other masculinist groups. In these groups, while they are engaged with acts of misogyny and supremacist discourses, some men meet the fundamental need ‘for meaningful social connection, to be part of a group, and to belong’ as well as to ‘“heal” modern alientation.’ More than simple gatherings, when these groups for men form around a perceived alienation from the mainstream they become spaces ‘to which [people] belong’ and believe that they ‘can act together to create change;’ Southern’s definition of a community of care. This paper establishes these groups as communities of care where care exists under Derridian erasure. This makes them important avenues for anti-feminist and misogynistic ideologies, exclusion, and violence, but through cultures of leisure inclusion and belonging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".