I don't really understand why there's so much focus on "young men" regarding the manosphere, when it it's composed and supported by grown up adults, some of them with daughters.
And it's tired how the focus is exclusively on how it could harm women and girls -not saying it's not important-, when some of the groups that are part of the manosphere exploit men's insecurities.
I would like to see if there's something on youth self esteem and social media use, since the most popular platforms are focused on looks and promoting beauty standards.
Whatever problems afflict men afflict men of all ages. This pretense that it's just "young men" who have problems is one of those smug distractions that have arisen along with the anti-social-media panic so that older generations can feel good about themselves. These myths have no basis in validity.
I found a decent article about the perils of the "manosphere" that actually sees the forest for the trees for once. What are your thoughts on this, Mike?
This is just the usual generational hate speech you'd find in Media Education Foundation videos 30 years ago deploring soaring young-male misogyny driven by pop culture, or in works 50 years ago by second-wave feminists like Susan Brownmiller and Mary Daly branding ALL men, 100%, as conscious rapists. In fact -- and deal with this fact instead of lying about it, progressives -- exit polls showed young men were the least likely of any male age to vote for Trump in 2024, and later polls show under-30 men have turned against Trump by huge margins. How do they explain that, if the "manosphere" dictates young-male thinking?
Indeed, fortunately MOST young males are NOT influenced by the "manosphere", and apparently most can see right through the vile, execrable Andrew Tate types who think they are being "edgy" and transgressive, but they are really just being banal and regressive. So there is really zero evidence (other than vaguely anecdotal) that today's younger generation of men and boys are any worse than previous generations in terms of misogyny. As for the relatively tiny but vocal sliver of them that are negatively influenced, it is certainly nothing new under the sun.
As for why the "manosphere" and fellow travelers are now sitting in the White House, well, that's certainly NOT because of Gen Z.
I appreciate your writing, thank you for doing so, very thought provoking.
Have you looked into the stated reasons for why men might be opposed to women's rights? This might offer clues to the issue and I notice that some of your priors fly in the face of those attitudes. For example, why is it a good thing that the wage gap has narrowed so much (in certain sectors/age groups women now surpass male earnings)? You touch on this gently by pointing out that men from older generations still have the economic advantage over women in their cohort. I think if you address this more specifically you could do a good job of framing the issue and shift the greater the conversation.
"Further, boys who spend *less* time watching videos and *less* time playing video games show the LEAST decline in and a HIGHER level of support for women's rights" (*emphasis added*)
Are you sure you got the wording correct, and not the reverse? Was that a mistake?
I don't really understand why there's so much focus on "young men" regarding the manosphere, when it it's composed and supported by grown up adults, some of them with daughters.
And it's tired how the focus is exclusively on how it could harm women and girls -not saying it's not important-, when some of the groups that are part of the manosphere exploit men's insecurities.
I would like to see if there's something on youth self esteem and social media use, since the most popular platforms are focused on looks and promoting beauty standards.
Whatever problems afflict men afflict men of all ages. This pretense that it's just "young men" who have problems is one of those smug distractions that have arisen along with the anti-social-media panic so that older generations can feel good about themselves. These myths have no basis in validity.
Well said
Thank you so much for what you do! In a world all to addicted to viewing young folks as scapegoats you're a breath of fresh air.
Thanks, Severiano. Much appreciated.
Some things really do never change
And we see the "teen panel syndrome" once again:
https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/insights-and-media/media-centre/press-releases/2025/may/half-of-young-people-want-to-grow-up-in-a-world-without-internet/
I'm suspicious of interest-group "polls" like this. Pew and more scholarly polls have found large majorities of teens like the internet.
Indeed, I am very suspicious of that as well.
I found a decent article about the perils of the "manosphere" that actually sees the forest for the trees for once. What are your thoughts on this, Mike?
https://open.substack.com/pub/thenoosphere/p/the-solutions-to-the-manosphere-crisis?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=17a3w
This is just the usual generational hate speech you'd find in Media Education Foundation videos 30 years ago deploring soaring young-male misogyny driven by pop culture, or in works 50 years ago by second-wave feminists like Susan Brownmiller and Mary Daly branding ALL men, 100%, as conscious rapists. In fact -- and deal with this fact instead of lying about it, progressives -- exit polls showed young men were the least likely of any male age to vote for Trump in 2024, and later polls show under-30 men have turned against Trump by huge margins. How do they explain that, if the "manosphere" dictates young-male thinking?
Indeed, fortunately MOST young males are NOT influenced by the "manosphere", and apparently most can see right through the vile, execrable Andrew Tate types who think they are being "edgy" and transgressive, but they are really just being banal and regressive. So there is really zero evidence (other than vaguely anecdotal) that today's younger generation of men and boys are any worse than previous generations in terms of misogyny. As for the relatively tiny but vocal sliver of them that are negatively influenced, it is certainly nothing new under the sun.
As for why the "manosphere" and fellow travelers are now sitting in the White House, well, that's certainly NOT because of Gen Z.
I appreciate your writing, thank you for doing so, very thought provoking.
Have you looked into the stated reasons for why men might be opposed to women's rights? This might offer clues to the issue and I notice that some of your priors fly in the face of those attitudes. For example, why is it a good thing that the wage gap has narrowed so much (in certain sectors/age groups women now surpass male earnings)? You touch on this gently by pointing out that men from older generations still have the economic advantage over women in their cohort. I think if you address this more specifically you could do a good job of framing the issue and shift the greater the conversation.
Thanks again.
Well said as usual, Mike.
Just one thing:
"Further, boys who spend *less* time watching videos and *less* time playing video games show the LEAST decline in and a HIGHER level of support for women's rights" (*emphasis added*)
Are you sure you got the wording correct, and not the reverse? Was that a mistake?
Badly worded sentence, but yes, gamers and video watchers were more pro-feminist than non-gamers and non-videoheads.
Indeed, that's what I thought you meant. And it clearly flies in the face of the feamongering propaganda.