How Manosphere Content Calms Angry Men

The Netflix series Adolescence The series, which explores the consequences following a teenage boy's killing of a female peer, has garnered almost 100 million views, positioning it as one of the platform's most successful productions so far. Audiences have commended the show for its intricate depiction of adolescent social dynamics infused with the ideologies prevalent in the misogynistic "manosphere" online community. However, this hasn’t earned universal acclaim; a spokesperson for prominent manosphere figure and purported sex trafficker Andrew Tate, who is explicitly mentioned in the series, told Newsweek :

The mention of Andrew Tate in Adolescence This effort tries to attribute larger social issues to a single person, which isn’t fair or precise. Even though the impact of online presence is a legitimate subject, it would be unfair for people to cast him as the sole scapegoat for complicated matters such as extremism and aggression, which originate from much deeper cultural and systematic causes.

Tate's representative makes a valid point: his toxic brand of intense nationalism. is indicative of broad cultural and economic shifts. Anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee, who earlier talked with Jacobin It's Meagan Day discussing the political economy of tradwives This topic explores the societal pressures and conflicts that propel individuals such as Tate to prominence and draw young men towards them.

The author of the book is Kristen Ghodsee. Why Women Enjoy More Fulfilling Sexuality Under Socialism , Everyday Utopia , And numerous additional books and chairs belong to the Department of Russian and Eastern European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. During her discussion, she suggests that the manosphere is addressing a deficiency in self-esteem stemming from the correlation between male worth and financial success amid significant income disparity. Additionally, she argues for considering the notion that contemporary society generates "surplus males," which introduces societal destabilization as everybody's concern. The challenge lies in tackling the matter of disaffected, enraged, and wounded young men without diminishing the autonomy achieved by women.

What makes the manosphere appealing to young men these days according to Meagan Day?

Kristen R. Ghodsee: Boys and young men are very lost. The future looks bleak to them, and they’re struggling to find sources of validation. Most men are economically disenfranchised, yet male social status is still primarily indexed to wealth. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey indicated that 71 percent of Americans feel it is crucial for a man to have the ability to provide financial stability for his family to be considered a good spouse or partner. Young males receive the signal that to be attractive and esteemed, they need to earn money; however, our economic system makes this exceedingly challenging.

Regardless of whether it’s intentional or not, these individuals think that lacking money will make women uninterested in them and cause others to lose respect for them. They observe people such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos being presented as paragons of manhood, yet realize they have little chance of reaching such heights themselves. Thus, they seek out alternative paths, options that are more readily available to them.

That's where this exaggerated version of masculinity becomes relevant. It's more cost-effective. Men possess the "gear" from birth, and since half of the population lacks it, they start off with an inherent edge. This explains why Tucker Carlson discusses red lights. therapy For your assets. It’s all about valuing your natural endowments. Naturally, such ideas frequently come with belittling women. Consider Andrew Tate and his overt disdain for women. Observe how UFC fighters approach this. feminize as much as possible, their adversaries.

Actually, glorifying men for acting masculine is merely giving them a consolation prize for having their hard-earned rewards taken away. This tactic is often employed when dealing with a large group of people who feel disconnected from society and could potentially destabilize the social order. It’s essential to soothe these individuals. Everyday Utopia I discuss how, throughout history, one method to calm agitated young males who might disrupt an economy marred by significant disparities has been to provide each man with a spouse, allowing him to wield authority within his household. As these men experience disenfranchisement in broader society, they redirect their dissatisfaction toward domestic life: "At the very least, I am a ruler in my own domain." This strategy serves as an age-old approach to maintain societal stability.

Young men aren’t thinking about it critically, and many of them mean well. Most guys, especially young men I teach, just want esteem. They want to be respected, loved, and appreciated. It’s not nefarious at all, but it ends up in this terrible place.

Meagan Day: Male inequality is a significant obsession within the manosphere. “alpha” and “beta” The discussion focuses on inequality among males. The entire " 80–20 incel discussions revolve around successful men versus unsuccessful ones, mirroring the core theme and high drama found in the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). This same concept underpins Donald Trump's rhetoric as well. It seems like society at large is preoccupied with contemplating where males stand in terms of their social status.

This doesn’t inherently belong to masculinity or have to be accepted in our society, does it? Discuss how the narrowing of inequalities among men under Eastern European state socialism influenced their interactions with one another and with women.

Kristen R. Ghodsee: There remained patriarchal structures in Eastern Europe—even eliminating capitalism does not inherently eradicate patriarchy. However, they disconnected patriarchy from its function in maintaining wealth disparity, which dulled its impact.

The disparities persisted, yet they pertained more to privileges than financial status. At the pinnacle of communist society, even then, restrictions existed regarding the size of one’s dwelling; owning a large house was out of the question. Acquiring a vehicle was extremely challenging, and when someone managed to do so, it turned out to be the standard model used by all others. Individuals would flaunt their superiority by boasting about the number of books they had perused and the specific time frame during which they were allocated visits to shared coastal retreats. . ( July was the highest-ranking month for going, by the way.)

To draw partners and gain social standing, men did not focus on increasing their earnings since such efforts would be ineffective within a socialist system where goods for purchase were scarce. Women selected mates based on physical appeal, compatible personalities, common hobbies, and emotional connection—rather than the prospective partner’s financial capability to cover living expenses, as state-provided housing rendered these concerns moot. Additionally, these societies offered support through child benefits, subsidized childcare services, and compensated parental leaves with job security. Consequently, under socialism, men needed to demonstrate attentiveness and strong partnership qualities to win over women.

The outcome, as I detailed in my book Why Women Enjoy More Fulfilling Sexuality Under Socialism , It turned out that men focused on becoming interesting individuals whom women were eager to be around. Naturally, this enhanced interactions between genders!

Following the era of socialism, when accumulating wealth became crucial for winning over women, many men discovered that obtaining money was far simpler than being captivating. This transformation adversely affected both genders; however, it particularly impacted males. Men raised during socialism often express that post-1989 or '91, they felt uncertain about whether women stayed with them out of genuine affection or due to financial dependency. These men hold an idyllic perspective of pre-capitalism courtships since companionship then typically meant mutual attraction rather than material interest. Such clarity provided these earlier generations with emotional security.

Meagan Day: When you mentioned earlier that elites appease young men out of fear of their potentially disruptive influence, what were you referring to exactly?

Kristen R. Ghodsee: A substantial amount of anthropological literature examines how disenfranchised and unmarried young males can pose a significant danger to societal stability. One particularly intriguing study explores this issue. article Specifically, as noted by Joseph Henrich and his team, polygamy tends to be inherently unstable due to the societal formation of a group of unmarried men with lower social status. Lacking stakes in conventional society, these men often resort to various forms of antisocial behavior.

Capitalism and monogamy usually go hand in hand, and that’s not a coincidence. People often note that monogamy is important for capitalism because it facilitates the intergenerational transfer of wealth from fathers to legitimate sons. But one thing we overlook is how, in a society with incredible inequality among men — a few very wealthy men at the top and many not-wealthy men at the bottom — those disadvantaged men are a problem for those in power. Monogamy ensures that the men who get all the wealth don’t also get all the wives. Thus, building on the work of Henrich and of historians like Laura Betzig I've contended that socially enforced universal monogamy serves as a mechanism for dominant males to sustain order within a hierarchical community. By distributing women more evenly across society, one can prevent societal turmoil and instability.

A 2016 paper tested the relationship between monogamy and male violence and found that having a partner did indeed reduce violent male behavior. One 2019 paper On "surplus males" within the Journal of Conflict Resolution also found good evidence that “young men who belong to polygynous groups,” or polygamous societies involving multiple wives per husband and thus many single men, “feel that they are treated more unequally and are readier to use violence in comparison to those belonging to monogamous groups.” Monogamy is the solution to the wife shortage created in societies that still practice polygyny.

However, what occurs if there's a scarcity of wives due to women marrying later, choosing not to marry altogether, or utilizing their earned right to seek divorces—not because wealthy men are monopolizing them? Essentially, owing to advancements in feminism and female autonomy? This situation presents the identical issue as polygamy: it leads to a group of unmarried men who may be aimless, agitated, and possibly unstable.

These individuals are highly susceptible. Due to societal constructs, men primarily receive their emotional sustenance from women, whereas women derive theirs from mutual interactions among themselves. During my time in Germany in 2022, I had two Ukrainian psychologist coworkers who provided telephonic trauma counseling for frontline personnel in Ukraine. They mentioned that nearly all their clients were female, despite many male soldiers experiencing significant trauma as well. Male service members felt ashamed about seeking mental health assistance. Unsupported young males can be readily influenced towards extreme ideologies due to enduring genuine distress.

Meagan Day; You’re proposing we recognize the real destabilizing potential of unpartnered men. Capitalism doesn’t want the chaos they would bring — but neither do we.

It's truly an issue, yet obviously, the answer shouldn't involve reversing feminist progress or, even more damagingly, "government-assigned partners," as proposed by some incels. half-joke Women's autonomy plays a role in this problem, yet infringing upon their autonomy isn't an acceptable solution. What should be done then?

Kristen R. Ghodsee: We should advocate for alternative definitions of male success beyond just becoming a UFC champion or amassing great wealth.

As economic disparities grow, disempowered men may turn to finding ways to assert their distinction. This could lead to an increase in misandry within the manosphere and a rise in various forms of prejudice. Such content serves to divert attention from issues like bachelorhood rates among "surplus males." These trends won’t subside until wealth inequalities are tackled head-on. The primary solution lies in redistributing wealth, which should be our main objective.

Moreover, we could envision alternative sources of respect that do not hinge on amassing riches or engaging in brute force. Achieving this would require institutions that acknowledge and value young single men for different qualities. Notably, there exists an organization brimming with such individuals that somehow curbs their potential disruptive influence: the military. What sets it apart? In the military, respect can be earned through achievements. Service members receive advancements, badges, and ranks which dictate how others interact with them; salutes being a prime example. This system inherently incorporates forms of recognition beyond mere monetary gain.

Meagan Day suggests we require establishments that provide single males with a consistent means for developing healthy self-esteem. These organizations should ideally contribute towards eliminating inequalities instead of merely diverting attention away from them or mirroring their stresses—particularly avoiding cases like the military, which essentially perpetuates these disparities.

A highly active labor movement, for example, would reward values like political leadership, community service, political education, and so on. High unionization rates create whole social worlds with their own incentive and affirmation structures. This could be a powerful social stabilizing force.

During the 1930s, unmarried men from the lower echelons of society distinguished themselves through their involvement in class struggles. These experiences transformed them into individuals they could take pride in being. Their lives took on an adventurous quality reminiscent of tales penned by authors such as John Steinbeck and Upton Sinclair. This observation seems significant somehow.

Kristen R. Ghodsee: What I was referring to earlier is how we can draw inspiration from the Eastern European socialist nations. These countries excelled at establishing groups such as the Young Pioneers and Komsomol, which functioned much like the Boy Scouts or Girl Scout troops here. Such community-based organizations offered structured pathways for individuals to progress and gain a sense of achievement. They served as alternate means of attaining respect and recognition beyond accumulating wealth or exerting dominance over others. Present-day Germany maintains this tradition with an abundance of these kinds of organizations. Conversely, in the U.S., as noted by Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone , we’ve lost these.

Meagan Day: So the answer to masses of ideologically unstable unpartnered men is not to undo feminism but to resurrect Kiwanis and Lions Clubs?

Kristen R. Ghodsee: [Laughs] Maybe not exactly that, but perhaps weekend soccer leagues or traditional martial arts, where you have belts and ascend through ranks. In a society where everything is about wealth, we need other metrics of achievement — you earn esteem not just because you’re rich or ripped, but because of your accomplishments. These kinds of institutions promote self-esteem and prosocial behavior.

However, past class struggles and civil groups, what we primarily require is quality employment. Employment settings could fulfill this role; under capitalism, they decidedly do not.

Meagan Day: Exactly. In the case of the working class, employment often fails to offer a feeling of achievement or dignity. Many individuals do not find opportunities for advancement, genuine recognition for their efforts, meaningful camaraderie, or an empowering mirror of themselves. Superior positions would not only come with higher wages; they'd also serve as consistent wellsprings of personal respect.

Kristen R. Ghodsee: Everyone requires money. However, past that necessity, all individuals desire the same basic things: to feel valued, acknowledged, and seen for their true selves and their contributions to the world. This is precisely why Jordan Peterson’s work resonates so deeply with people. 12 Rules for Life It was an enormous bestseller. The book aimed at young men conveyed messages like, "These are methods through which you can gain self-esteem." These individuals yearn for it.

As proponents of socialism, feminism, and humanism, we fundamentally need to grasp this concept. Our political stance should be rooted in these beliefs, and we ought to suggest practical solutions that enhance individuals' self-esteem.

Meagan Day: I prefer tackling the issue of discontented unmarried men through wealth redistribution and revitalizing community groups over pushing women back into a state of financial and legal reliance on men.

Kristen R. Ghodsee: The conservatives are making significant efforts to pursue the latter option. They have already succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade They're stigmatizing women, similar to J.D. Vance's comment about "childless cat ladies," and they're also pushing tradwife material to persuade women to leave the workforce . Some conservatives are even already talking about making divorce harder, since women are the primary initiators of divorce. They want to prevent women from leaving marriages to deal with this problem.

Guys like Andrew Tate are trying to convince young men that there is no other route to admiration and status than through wealth and domination over each other and over women — and if they try to pursue other avenues, they’re not real men.

If men had an alternative form of validation, they would be happier. But our society is based on this competitive notion that we’re all better off if everybody is fighting for scraps from the billionaire’s table. It’s a form of social control. Young men who buy into all of this manosphere stuff need to hear that they’re being distracted and used.

Source: Jacobin . Co-published with permission.