Discussion Roundtable: What do we do with the manosphere?
What do we do when harmful movements thrive in BOTH sunlight and shadow?
What? I’m coming to you on a Wednesday? Weird.
I’m trying something new: Discussion Roundtables.
I’m not coming to you with tidy conclusions. I’m coming with something I’m mulling over that I can’t quite resolve myself.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
This week I’m mulling over what do we do with the manosphere?
In Louis Theroux’s new documentary Inside the Manosphere, he immerses himself in the internet subculture known for egregious misogyny.
Writing for The Independent, Adam White argues that the documentary may have done the exact opposite of what it intended—amplifying the manosphere’s relevance rather than diminishing it.
“Inside the Manosphere may have set out to expose this particular subculture as one full of beasts and charlatans… But didn’t we know that already? Ultimately this is an expensive Netflix documentary that’s provided maximum exposure to individuals who consider any kind of attention a win.” - Adam White
And honestly… it’s a compelling argument.
Because the manosphere thrives on outrage.
Attention, whether it’s positive or negative isn’t a threat to them. It’s what they are after.
So the question becomes:
Are we accidentally feeding the very thing we’re trying to dismantle by talking about these men and their prejudiced ideas?
These men already believe they are victims that are being silenced. Do we add fuel to their fire with documentaries like Theroux’s?
At what point does “exposing” something just become… marketing?
On the other hand…..
Ignoring it hasn’t worked either.
The manosphere didn’t appear because we were talking about it too much. If anything, it grew while most of us weren’t looking directly at it at all.
And history isn’t exactly on the side of “just ignore a problem and it’ll go away.”
Don’t dark movements thrive in the shadows?
So there’s another equally compelling argument:
If there is a movement that is quickly becoming mainstream out to spread harmful ideologies to our boys, don’t we have an obligation to look at it directly?
To understand it and name it with clarity? To know exactly what it is we are dealing with?
How can we counter something we refuse to examine?
So now we’re stuck between two uncomfortable truths:
Attention can legitimize.
Silence can enable.
And neither feels like a satisfying strategy.
So I’m curious where you land:
Are ignoring and platforming our only options?
What actually counts as responsible attention?
Where is the line between exposing something harmful and inadvertently expanding its reach?
What do we do with the manosphere?
I think it is important to unpack what drives the manosphere, thoroughly examine it, and talk about what we find - openly, honestly, and publicly. We can do this without rage. My own take is that we can already name some aspects of the root cause - patriarchy, privilege (dominated by white privilege) and entitlement which then emerges as misogyny and violence towards women. But where does this come from? I think it is fundamentally that the world is created by men for men and centered around the freedom of men (primarily white men). Men occupy the same spaces as women but they live in an entirely different world. I stumbled upon this when comparing notes about traveling with a white male friend. He moves through the world completely free - wearing whatever he wants, driving late nights, making friends at 2 am in the gas stations. I don't. I drive nervously at night, throw on a jacket even if it's hot at night, zip in and out very fast at the 2 am gas stations and skip every gas station that isn't well lit with people. There is a fundamental difference between how I engage the world and how he does. He is free and I am constrained. This is true in every situation - business interactions, getting a part to repair a car, even just sending an email to a customer. Men don't understand that this special world of theirs exists because they live in it and when we try to point it out to them they get angry and defensive. I think the 4B movement was a way to reclaim some of our freedom and I also think this is why the manobros got really upset and said things like "your body my choice." I think until we can understand this fundamental difference, articulate it, and help our male friends see it, all of the "fixes" are just bandaids. I did explain this to my male friend and it moved the needle a bit - he recognized areas where he objectifies women and how this is unfair to the woman he is objectifying and is making a conscious effort to stop - not perfect but progress.
Not talking about sexual assaults did not help. Look at all the court cases, books and so forth it took to make men aware there are negative consequences to their actions. If only there were a way to identify and shame those men in the manosphere. Whatever light can be shown on this ugly secretive misogyny can only help develop consequences.
The court case against META and YouTube reported on today is encouraging. The successful Plaintive's case was that corporations were liable for the emotional damages done to a vulnerable teenage girl due to the addictive nature of the content carried by their services.
It would be interesting to know if a case for damages could be built linking the content on the manosphere and the internet providers that carry that content.
I would love to hear an attorney's opinion about this.