Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Manosphere Is Bad for Boys and Worse for Democracy

Opinion

The Manosphere Is Bad for Boys and Worse for Democracy
a skeleton sitting at a desk with a laptop and keyboard
Photo by Growtika on Unsplash

15-year-old Owen Cooper made history to become the youngest male to win an Emmy Award. In the Netflix series Adolescence, Owen plays the role of a 13-year-old schoolboy who is arrested after the murder of a girl in his school. As we follow the events leading up to the crime, the award-winning series forces us to confront legitimate insecurities that many teenage boys face, from lack of physical prowess to emotional disconnection from their fathers. It also exposes how easily young men, seeking comfort in their computers, can be pulled into online spaces that normalize misogyny and rage; a pipeline enabled by a failure of tech policy.

At the center of this danger lies the manosphere: a global network of influencers whose words can radicalize young men and channel their frustrations into violence. But this is more than a social crisis affecting some young men. It is a growing threat to the democratic values of equality and tolerance that keep us all safe.


Like the crime series, we have already seen where this can lead in real life. Recently, French authorities charged a teenager connected to the incel subculture with terrorism, marking the country’s first such case of gender-based violence, a case built on the young man’s conspiracy to harm women. This should not be seen as an isolated incident, but as a symptom of a broader ideological problem.

While toxic for the young men it ensnares, the manosphere's deeper danger lies in its corrosion of the foundational values of democracy. These male-dominated online spaces reinforce rigid, traditional masculine norms. On the surface, we may see young men searching for identity and belonging, but beneath churns a murky undercurrent of pseudoscience and a contempt for gender equality.

Misogynistic messages poison the minds of young men, weaponizing their frustrations. They offer a seductively simple answer to complex feelings of loneliness: blame women. In 2014, Elliot Rodger fatally stabbed three people before going on a shooting spree to kill three more and injure 14 others. In his manifesto, he wrote, “All of my suffering in this world has been at the hands of humanity, particularly women,” blaming even his childhood crush for his violent hatred of women.

This blame can then be refined into a hatred for the very institutions, such as education, government, and the media, that are pillars of a functioning civil society, breeding a generation that rejects the pluralistic ideals necessary for democracy to thrive. Take, for example, the rise of far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Sweden that are attracting a new generation of young men who have lost faith in democracy. They share racist memes and violent videos to attract potential recruits, including boys as young as 10, on mainstream platforms like TikTok, before moving to more private, less regulated spaces.

The manosphere is a pathway to violence where online hate is turned into real-world violence. The French case is a direct example, but the trail of blood stretches back to attacks in Toronto, Isla Vista, and beyond. These digital communities don’t just vent; they strategize. They provide twisted justification and promote a culture of martyrdom that glorifies retribution. The leap from dehumanizing rhetoric on a forum to physical acts of terror is shorter than we imagine.

The manosphere is not neutral and can serve as a pipeline to extremist ideologies. While its entry point is often resentment of women, its logic inevitably expands. The same frameworks of hatred used against women are easily applied to minorities, migrants, and LGBTQ+ individuals. The Center on Extremism (COE) explains that the fear that women’s equality undermines men’s status is just a step away from seeing all demands for equality as threats to white male dominance. This exposes the symbiosis between misogyny and white supremacy, both connected by a deep-seated loathing of women.

And this matters because the status of women has long been a litmus test for the health of democracy. A recent study by the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security found that women’s equality is strongly correlated with election integrity, freedom of association and assembly, and checks on executive power. In other words, when women’s rights erode, so too do the foundations of democratic governance.

Some argue that we might be overestimating the influence of the manosphere, as many of its users selectively choose what resonates with them and disregard what doesn’t. Indeed, not every frustrated young man online is a criminal. Not all criticism of society is extremist. Yet history shows that even small, seemingly fringe groups can eventually reshape society in harmful, authoritarian, or destructive ways. When Adolf Hitler joined the German Workers’ Party, which later became the Nazi Party, he was the 55th member. We do not have to wait for a movement to gain a large following to see the potential trajectory it may take.

Ignoring the manosphere is a luxury we cannot afford. Combating it requires a proactive, multi-sectoral effort that must include a robust tech policy framework. Tech companies must move beyond reactive content moderation and proactively redesign their algorithms to de-amplify hateful content, rather than recommending it. They must consistently enforce their own terms of service against organized hate and misogyny, subjecting their enforcement to independent audits for transparency. Furthermore, they should invest in redirect initiatives that algorithmically offer resources for mental health and positive mentorship to users searching for harmful keywords. Governments must move beyond a hands-off approach. They should legislate mandatory safety-by-design standards for platforms, compelling them to conduct and publish risk assessments on how platforms might facilitate radicalization. Legislators must also strengthen laws that hold platforms accountable for knowingly profiting from the algorithmic amplification of extremist content.

This must be coupled with integrating digital literacy into education to build resilience against manipulation and, most importantly, offering young men positive models of manhood built on respect rather than hatred and blame. Our collective safety and the future of our democratic values may just depend on it.

Kevin Liverpool is a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project. He works as a partnerships specialist with No Means No Worldwide, an international nonprofit on a mission to end sexual violence against women and children globally.



Read More

The U.S. Pentagon.

Buried in the 2027 NDAA, Section 224 could fundamentally reshape U.S.-Israel defense ties. Is Congress creating an irreversible military partnership?

Getty Images, Westend61

America Should Stay Single

As we wait to see what comes of ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran, the House just released its 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Buried within it lies Section 224, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” a provision representing what would be a radical departure from how we work with even our strongest allies, turning America’s relationship with a close collaborator into a permanent military-industrial integration. The U.S. has worked with NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains in the past, but never like this. Many are calling it a merger. We should all be calling it off.

Section 224 could inextricably link the fate of our country’s defense to another’s. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to designate an executive agent to fuse ventures with Israel so significantly that it would touch almost every area of defense tech: AI, autonomous systems, energy, cyber, biotech, and beyond. It also proposes “network” and “data fusion,” which means, as the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute warned, “the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.America First may soon sound more like a sarcastic punchline than a platform.

Keep ReadingShow less
AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Discover how generative AI in healthcare could reduce misdiagnoses, improve chronic disease management, and save hundreds of thousands of lives—if policymakers accelerate adoption instead of waiting for risk-free perfection.

Getty Images / Pakorn Supajitsoontorn

AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Imagine that the only way Americans traveled was on foot or on horseback. And assume that 100,000 people died each year because they couldn’t reach a hospital in time or firefighters arrived too late.

Suddenly, they learned that thanks to a technological breakthrough, cars and trucks will become widely available within three years.

Keep ReadingShow less
This 3D rendered image shows a central AI processing chip sitting atop a glowing blue printed circuit board.

Can AI profit-sharing help workers? Examining public wealth funds, AI taxes, economic transition policies, and the future of work.

Jason marz / Getty Images

There’s No Easy Path Through the AI Transition

“Trending” policy ideas tend to garner attention for all the wrong reasons: they seem like silver bullet solutions that will save us from taking on much harder reforms. Proposals to share profits from leading AI companies with the public are the latest example. It’s the rare policy scheme that seems to have united President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and CEOs at the leading AI labs. While the proposals for AI profit sharing vary in their precise details, a quick review of their likely outcomes should quickly deflate the popular excitement that has formed in response to calls for new taxes, public wealth funds, and the like. It’s important to reveal such limitations so that the AI policy discourse can move on to mechanisms more likely to address the real concerns of the American people.

In our first hypothetical world, the two leading AI labs—Anthropic and OpenAI—give away 3% of their equity. That’s not nothing! Based on current figures, such a contribution could kickstart a public wealth fund of about $55 billion. Let’s then imagine that fund earns 10% a year (a big “if” but let’s run with it). Per The Economist, this AI would reach a staggering $140 billion within ten years. How much would that benefit Americans? If annual payouts were 4% — what the publication reports is a proper amount to keep the fund going and growing — Americans would have an extra $20 in their pocket.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger
a couple of people sitting at a table with cups of coffee

For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger

The Democracy Architects Council, presented by The Bridge Alliance Education Fund and Civics Unplugged, offers a paid, one-year fellowship for eight fellows ages 18 to 28, each selected for their work across a distinct sector of democratic life.

The youngest member of the Democracy Architects Council is building AI-powered civic tech, but he says the real work of democracy still happens face to face.

Keep ReadingShow less