On terminology may I highlight this https://j4mb.org.uk/2026/03/14/elizabeth-hobson-writes/ and the term "Misandrism" on a leaflet from a school (here in the UK). I actually like the term because using "ism" conveys the idea that the prejudice that females are morally superior and males brutish and toxic is a set of beliefs as one finds in an ideology or religion (and describes feminism in fact). As you say the "Manosphere" is bandied about as if anything men do and are interested in and is therefore to be suspected, in other words Misandrism. I did see a part of this Theroux programme. The supposedly misogynist young man being interviewed as an influencer loved his mum, was into being physically fit and had a set of contradictory ideas which he espoused with the typical confidence of youth. If he wasn't a teenager his behaviour was that of one. That he was some purveyor of extreme evil of whom we should be terrified was plainly ridiculous. Only tenable if you believe he and his viewers are evil toxic monsters; rather than typical teenagers who combine naivete with certainty and sticking two fingers up to authority. I rather like the idea of "misandrist" and "feminist" becoming synonymous
Tom, this is superb! You’ve articulated something that’s been forming in my mind as well. The word “manosphere” just feels like a weaponised label used to dismiss male perspectives that aren’t framed through a feminist lens. The moment concerns are grouped under that label, they’re easier to caricature, demonise or just ignore.
Men having concerns – and voicing them – shouldn’t be treated as suspect or reactionary. Shutting down those conversations is counterproductive to achieving a truly inclusive public discourse. I don’t think that’s accidental; it increasingly looks like a feature of how the conversation is framed to ensure only the dominant narrative gets a hearing.
P.S. I grew up reading The Guardian but, sadly, it has gone downhill since its current editor (Katharine Viner) took over in 2015. I believe she's a fan of extreme misandrist Andrea Dworkin. Once you notice the paper's anti-male bias, you can't unsee it. It's a pity for a newspaper that for many years advertised itself under the slogan "Free Thinkers Welcome" ... not any more!
We are! The misinformation and disinformation surrounding the so-called “manosphere” deserves more attention than it is likely to receive. It would make a good research project for someone able to devote the time and energy to it!
Me too! As a Mancunian I was proud of the former Manchester Guardian the great Brian Redhead comes to mind. However long before 2015 I got fed up with its smug middle class attitude. And as you say these days its well beyond redemption.
I regard the whole discussion with mokosatsu - the Japanese word which means, literally to kill by ignoring. I haven't the slightest interest in anyone's opinion about the manosphere. It developed as a very belated response to unrelenting attacks on men, manhood, and masculinity. Men have responded in the same way that I have: they are going their own way, minding their own business, and they really don't give a red rat's ass about what anybody thinks, and in particular feminized woke lamestream rags.
They say it got Japan nuclear-bombed, but who knows.....
Did you enjoy the Amelia videos? I WANT that German girl. Too bad she's not real - just electrons in a wire. Oh well - has to be an improvement on the so-called Real Thing.
*******************************
From AI:
Mokusatsu is a Japanese term meaning "to kill with silence" or "ignore," infamously used by Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki in July 1945 regarding the Potsdam Declaration. It was intended to mean "no comment" while the government considered terms, but was translated as "ignore with contempt," directly contributing to the U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs.
Romolo Capuano
+2
Context: In response to the Allied ultimatum for unconditional surrender, PM Suzuki intended to buy time, not outright reject it, but the ambiguity of the term backfired.
The Mistranslation: International media and the U.S. government interpreted mokusatsu as a dismissive, arrogant rejection, signaling that Japan would continue fighting.
Significance: It is widely cited as one of the most disastrous communication breakdowns in history, potentially altering the course of the war's end.
Some historians argue that the word was not ambiguous and the Japanese military intended to convey defiance, but the dominant narrative emphasizes a fatal misunderstanding.
*****************
Ah hell; I never had a Suzuki I could trust anyway.
1. Stephen J. Gould wrote a book entitled "The Mismeasure of Man." In it he chronicled numerous methods used to quantify intelligence, one was measurement of the cranium. Women, having smaller stature, therefore smaller cranium, were claimed to be less intelligent. We know that is not true today and yet we hear statements referring to boys asymmetrical brain development as indication of girls maturing faster. It seems to me that the only accurate statement would be that girls and boys mature differently.
2. I read a piece about Paul Harvey in which the author made the comment that Paul had to navigate his youth without a father, dealing with the brain damaging effects of testosterone. In a cursory search of non-academic web sites I discovered that LH and FSH have been shown to damage women's minds but I found no immediate indication of testosterone damaging the male brain. The caveat is that some men use performance enhancing steroids that increase testosterone, and that can be damaging.
3. Regarding porn, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in 1964 I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material... but I know it when I see it”. Viewing porn on the internet or even quantifying the purchase of magazines in the 20th century provided hard evidence of men's actions, but not their motives. I've been divorced for 21 years, and a confirmed bachelor (best said like that rather than risk the admonitions associated with saying that I have been celibate). I'll simply say that from evidence of what porn I surf for and evidence provided in the one and only true love I ever had, 51 years ago. Satisfaction comes from the fantasy in porn of believing that I am wanted. Satisfaction from the one love came from the same thing. Even though we never engaged in coitus, I knew that it was not prohibited! Since it was not prohibited, it was suddenly and surprisingly not mandated. The way this woman touched me, the truth she communicated with her hugs and the belief that she never lied to me and really cared for me gave me what I desperately wanted. I still want that but I no longer fantasize about something that will probably never happen. I feel lucky that it did happen once. To look at the other side of the porn coin, consider what women do to fulfill their desires. First is the pursuit, compliments and even unwanted attention that women receive. It's difficult for women to consider that these things are rarely heard or felt by men. Second is the traditional porn (as defined by what men view) that women view. Women do view internet porn, perhaps less than men, but do we really know? I read something recently that stated women prefer BDSM porn. Not surprising when we consider the content of the so-called "Harlequin Romance" novels or the penchant for women to watch shows with male nudity on HBO and Netflix. I am assuming this based on the audience response when these shows are mentioned on the late night TV shows. I'll end by relating the matriarchy of my mother's family and how my girl cousins would tout their maturity and be allowed to see the boys naked while the boys were castigated and run off when the girls were naked. When I was about 6 I saw a photograph of a naked man in National Geographic. This embarrassed me and my cousin so we went to his mother to seek comfort. All she told us was that women were more beautiful than men. I would love to find someone to hold me, I feel like I would cry for days until she could remove the hurt and reassure me that I am wanted, loved, needed and appreciated. But, again, I do not delude myself with fantasies that I will once again feel that I belong, feel that I am where I am suppose to be, feel wanted and needed and loved.
Sometimes, what's not said (at least not explicitly) is just as significant as what is said—which reminds me that women have their own femisphere. Although not all sites are misandric, all are profoundly gynocentric. They’re not only entirely about the needs and problems of women but also seldom, or never, about the effects that women have on men. And some sites really are grotesquely misandric as well. How about a book about that phenomenon, which remains hidden in plain sight?
So the point that the manosphere arose organically as a reaction to the excesses of feminism and its unforseen consequences on men, boys and families did not seem to be realised. This doesnt surprise me. Perhaps if it had looked at the effect of feminism and gynocracy on stable relationships marriages and childbirth it might have got further (affects women) but that would have in detractors minds simply have given more airspace to the issue.
A report in Europe late last year was very sure about what they were calling the manosphere. Starting with 'misogyny' sites nobody could check because they didn't even exist in the Internet Archive, the list went on to list dangerous sites like the MRM including those dreadful dads trying to find their a abducted children, and on to secluded corners where men discuss physical and mental health away from women (tut tut), and down to a site that was deliberately aimed at only men (gosh how terrible) - that promoted cooking and eating well.
All put together. All painted as bad and a danger to society. Just like men themselves, was the only conclusion possible.
Yes, it is bizarre how they will create huge claims from no evidence. They have been doing this for decades and are starting to finally be called on some of it.
Tom, I put this into the search engine "how film makers manipulate their audience" Below are some of the results;
"So why would documentary filmmakers bother going to the trouble of engaging with the real world if they are just going to manipulate their footage into a"
A long time ago, I undertook what was called "Media Studies", and one example shown to us was about a housing block. One documentary portrayed the housing block as a warm and supportive place to live. The other documentary about the same housing block portrays it as cold and crime-ridden.
Camera angles played a huge role in the narrative.
Take the image of Louis with an arm about his head, like he was being strangled, it sets the scene as it has already, in a kind of subliminal way, of implying violence.
When people start watching with a particular emotional viewpoint, that is how they will interpret the rest of the film.
And yet again -- or should I say "still"? -- we are demonized so as to be easily kept on the defensive, rather than queried and heard for what is right about what the manosphere, almost entirely bereft of support and resources from any major institution, is trying to say. Recall Harry Truman's remark, "I never gave anybody hell. I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell."
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” [Misattributed to Ghandi].
We are in the early parts of phase three, and I've seen it move there in my own nine years with all this. Progress!
Phase four isn't guarenteed, and won't come cheaply, but at least we've made progress, and they've conceded it.
My guess is that our strongest weapon is always MGTOW. They'll certainly blame that on the manosphere, but everything everything they say and do only reinforces MGTOW.
"Amathia" a new word I discovered today, and it is, in my opinion, very appropriate to be used in the context of the fear-mongering that is happening aroung the "Manosphere".
Quote<
"Amathia described this condition: the illusion of wisdom combined with hostility toward genuine inquiry. In the Apology, Socrates argues that his own wisdom consists only in knowing that he does not know. The unexamined life, he insisted, invites a blindness that corrupts judgement. When people cling to unfounded certainty, they drift toward moral and civic failure." > unquote.
Nice, Tom. So once again — or should I say “still”? — we are demonized so as to keep us on the defensive, rather than being queried for the truth of what the manosphere, completely bereft of support and resources from any major institution or government initiative, is trying to say. Let’s recall Harry Truman’s remark, “I never gave anybody hell. I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell.”
Simply put, the word "Manosphere" is used to attack men as misogynists and there's no escaping this point.
Exactly.
On terminology may I highlight this https://j4mb.org.uk/2026/03/14/elizabeth-hobson-writes/ and the term "Misandrism" on a leaflet from a school (here in the UK). I actually like the term because using "ism" conveys the idea that the prejudice that females are morally superior and males brutish and toxic is a set of beliefs as one finds in an ideology or religion (and describes feminism in fact). As you say the "Manosphere" is bandied about as if anything men do and are interested in and is therefore to be suspected, in other words Misandrism. I did see a part of this Theroux programme. The supposedly misogynist young man being interviewed as an influencer loved his mum, was into being physically fit and had a set of contradictory ideas which he espoused with the typical confidence of youth. If he wasn't a teenager his behaviour was that of one. That he was some purveyor of extreme evil of whom we should be terrified was plainly ridiculous. Only tenable if you believe he and his viewers are evil toxic monsters; rather than typical teenagers who combine naivete with certainty and sticking two fingers up to authority. I rather like the idea of "misandrist" and "feminist" becoming synonymous
Yep
Tom, this is superb! You’ve articulated something that’s been forming in my mind as well. The word “manosphere” just feels like a weaponised label used to dismiss male perspectives that aren’t framed through a feminist lens. The moment concerns are grouped under that label, they’re easier to caricature, demonise or just ignore.
Men having concerns – and voicing them – shouldn’t be treated as suspect or reactionary. Shutting down those conversations is counterproductive to achieving a truly inclusive public discourse. I don’t think that’s accidental; it increasingly looks like a feature of how the conversation is framed to ensure only the dominant narrative gets a hearing.
P.S. I grew up reading The Guardian but, sadly, it has gone downhill since its current editor (Katharine Viner) took over in 2015. I believe she's a fan of extreme misandrist Andrea Dworkin. Once you notice the paper's anti-male bias, you can't unsee it. It's a pity for a newspaper that for many years advertised itself under the slogan "Free Thinkers Welcome" ... not any more!
Thanks Nick. Glad we are on the same page!
We are! The misinformation and disinformation surrounding the so-called “manosphere” deserves more attention than it is likely to receive. It would make a good research project for someone able to devote the time and energy to it!
Right, we know that including Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson as representative of the manosphere is dishonest. The two men have nothing in common.
Me too! As a Mancunian I was proud of the former Manchester Guardian the great Brian Redhead comes to mind. However long before 2015 I got fed up with its smug middle class attitude. And as you say these days its well beyond redemption.
Good point!
I regard the whole discussion with mokosatsu - the Japanese word which means, literally to kill by ignoring. I haven't the slightest interest in anyone's opinion about the manosphere. It developed as a very belated response to unrelenting attacks on men, manhood, and masculinity. Men have responded in the same way that I have: they are going their own way, minding their own business, and they really don't give a red rat's ass about what anybody thinks, and in particular feminized woke lamestream rags.
mokosatsu! You have my curiosity up! I will have to look that one up.
Sorry - I misspelled it. It's mokusatsu.
They say it got Japan nuclear-bombed, but who knows.....
Did you enjoy the Amelia videos? I WANT that German girl. Too bad she's not real - just electrons in a wire. Oh well - has to be an improvement on the so-called Real Thing.
*******************************
From AI:
Mokusatsu is a Japanese term meaning "to kill with silence" or "ignore," infamously used by Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki in July 1945 regarding the Potsdam Declaration. It was intended to mean "no comment" while the government considered terms, but was translated as "ignore with contempt," directly contributing to the U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs.
Romolo Capuano
+2
Context: In response to the Allied ultimatum for unconditional surrender, PM Suzuki intended to buy time, not outright reject it, but the ambiguity of the term backfired.
The Mistranslation: International media and the U.S. government interpreted mokusatsu as a dismissive, arrogant rejection, signaling that Japan would continue fighting.
Significance: It is widely cited as one of the most disastrous communication breakdowns in history, potentially altering the course of the war's end.
Literal Meaning: Moku (silence) + Satsu (kill/murder).
National Security Agency (NSA) (.gov)
+4
Some historians argue that the word was not ambiguous and the Japanese military intended to convey defiance, but the dominant narrative emphasizes a fatal misunderstanding.
*****************
Ah hell; I never had a Suzuki I could trust anyway.
i would rather see the impact of Feminist misandry on men.
I messaged this to James Nuzzo:
The following three concerns bother me:
1. Stephen J. Gould wrote a book entitled "The Mismeasure of Man." In it he chronicled numerous methods used to quantify intelligence, one was measurement of the cranium. Women, having smaller stature, therefore smaller cranium, were claimed to be less intelligent. We know that is not true today and yet we hear statements referring to boys asymmetrical brain development as indication of girls maturing faster. It seems to me that the only accurate statement would be that girls and boys mature differently.
2. I read a piece about Paul Harvey in which the author made the comment that Paul had to navigate his youth without a father, dealing with the brain damaging effects of testosterone. In a cursory search of non-academic web sites I discovered that LH and FSH have been shown to damage women's minds but I found no immediate indication of testosterone damaging the male brain. The caveat is that some men use performance enhancing steroids that increase testosterone, and that can be damaging.
3. Regarding porn, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in 1964 I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material... but I know it when I see it”. Viewing porn on the internet or even quantifying the purchase of magazines in the 20th century provided hard evidence of men's actions, but not their motives. I've been divorced for 21 years, and a confirmed bachelor (best said like that rather than risk the admonitions associated with saying that I have been celibate). I'll simply say that from evidence of what porn I surf for and evidence provided in the one and only true love I ever had, 51 years ago. Satisfaction comes from the fantasy in porn of believing that I am wanted. Satisfaction from the one love came from the same thing. Even though we never engaged in coitus, I knew that it was not prohibited! Since it was not prohibited, it was suddenly and surprisingly not mandated. The way this woman touched me, the truth she communicated with her hugs and the belief that she never lied to me and really cared for me gave me what I desperately wanted. I still want that but I no longer fantasize about something that will probably never happen. I feel lucky that it did happen once. To look at the other side of the porn coin, consider what women do to fulfill their desires. First is the pursuit, compliments and even unwanted attention that women receive. It's difficult for women to consider that these things are rarely heard or felt by men. Second is the traditional porn (as defined by what men view) that women view. Women do view internet porn, perhaps less than men, but do we really know? I read something recently that stated women prefer BDSM porn. Not surprising when we consider the content of the so-called "Harlequin Romance" novels or the penchant for women to watch shows with male nudity on HBO and Netflix. I am assuming this based on the audience response when these shows are mentioned on the late night TV shows. I'll end by relating the matriarchy of my mother's family and how my girl cousins would tout their maturity and be allowed to see the boys naked while the boys were castigated and run off when the girls were naked. When I was about 6 I saw a photograph of a naked man in National Geographic. This embarrassed me and my cousin so we went to his mother to seek comfort. All she told us was that women were more beautiful than men. I would love to find someone to hold me, I feel like I would cry for days until she could remove the hurt and reassure me that I am wanted, loved, needed and appreciated. But, again, I do not delude myself with fantasies that I will once again feel that I belong, feel that I am where I am suppose to be, feel wanted and needed and loved.
If testosterone is dangerous for men there are a whole lot of us in deep trouble!
Excellent, as usual, Tom. Great title, too.
Sometimes, what's not said (at least not explicitly) is just as significant as what is said—which reminds me that women have their own femisphere. Although not all sites are misandric, all are profoundly gynocentric. They’re not only entirely about the needs and problems of women but also seldom, or never, about the effects that women have on men. And some sites really are grotesquely misandric as well. How about a book about that phenomenon, which remains hidden in plain sight?
Thanks Paul!
About that book....write it!
So the point that the manosphere arose organically as a reaction to the excesses of feminism and its unforseen consequences on men, boys and families did not seem to be realised. This doesnt surprise me. Perhaps if it had looked at the effect of feminism and gynocracy on stable relationships marriages and childbirth it might have got further (affects women) but that would have in detractors minds simply have given more airspace to the issue.
Indeed. Documentaries we would like to see.
A report in Europe late last year was very sure about what they were calling the manosphere. Starting with 'misogyny' sites nobody could check because they didn't even exist in the Internet Archive, the list went on to list dangerous sites like the MRM including those dreadful dads trying to find their a abducted children, and on to secluded corners where men discuss physical and mental health away from women (tut tut), and down to a site that was deliberately aimed at only men (gosh how terrible) - that promoted cooking and eating well.
All put together. All painted as bad and a danger to society. Just like men themselves, was the only conclusion possible.
Thankfully, in reality Men Are Good.
Yes, it is bizarre how they will create huge claims from no evidence. They have been doing this for decades and are starting to finally be called on some of it.
My questioning of the Documentary methodology has resulted in a huge amount of personal hate attacks.
It is very easy for documentary makers to manipulate their audience, and people will take what they see as gospel.
Do you have a link to anything questioning the methodology? Would love to see it.
Tom, I put this into the search engine "how film makers manipulate their audience" Below are some of the results;
"So why would documentary filmmakers bother going to the trouble of engaging with the real world if they are just going to manipulate their footage into a"
https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2264&context=theses_hons
"Movies, Media, Manipulation, And Control How Movies Manipulate Your Mind"
https://medium.com/illumination/movies-media-manipulation-and-control-52d893b31958
"Audience manipulation"
https://fiveable.me/film-and-media-theory/key-terms/audience-manipulation
The Psychology Of Film Editing & Its Impact On Your Audience
https://noamkroll.com/the-psychology-of-film-editing-the-impact-on-your-audience/
A long time ago, I undertook what was called "Media Studies", and one example shown to us was about a housing block. One documentary portrayed the housing block as a warm and supportive place to live. The other documentary about the same housing block portrays it as cold and crime-ridden.
Camera angles played a huge role in the narrative.
Take the image of Louis with an arm about his head, like he was being strangled, it sets the scene as it has already, in a kind of subliminal way, of implying violence.
When people start watching with a particular emotional viewpoint, that is how they will interpret the rest of the film.
When it comes to reporting what has been said, what winds up on the cutting room floor is perhaps the real story.
And yet again -- or should I say "still"? -- we are demonized so as to be easily kept on the defensive, rather than queried and heard for what is right about what the manosphere, almost entirely bereft of support and resources from any major institution, is trying to say. Recall Harry Truman's remark, "I never gave anybody hell. I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell."
Yet again indeed. Good to see you Jack.
Putting it in a hopeful spin...
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” [Misattributed to Ghandi].
We are in the early parts of phase three, and I've seen it move there in my own nine years with all this. Progress!
Phase four isn't guarenteed, and won't come cheaply, but at least we've made progress, and they've conceded it.
My guess is that our strongest weapon is always MGTOW. They'll certainly blame that on the manosphere, but everything everything they say and do only reinforces MGTOW.
MGTOW is critically important.
They are unable to fight it and unable to fight anything. The only thing they can now attack is an army of strawmen.
"Amathia" a new word I discovered today, and it is, in my opinion, very appropriate to be used in the context of the fear-mongering that is happening aroung the "Manosphere".
Quote<
"Amathia described this condition: the illusion of wisdom combined with hostility toward genuine inquiry. In the Apology, Socrates argues that his own wisdom consists only in knowing that he does not know. The unexamined life, he insisted, invites a blindness that corrupts judgement. When people cling to unfounded certainty, they drift toward moral and civic failure." > unquote.
Nice, Tom. So once again — or should I say “still”? — we are demonized so as to keep us on the defensive, rather than being queried for the truth of what the manosphere, completely bereft of support and resources from any major institution or government initiative, is trying to say. Let’s recall Harry Truman’s remark, “I never gave anybody hell. I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell.”
If Sneako is part of the manosphere, then sports and fishing is part of the manosphere.
Thanks, Tom. Jack Donovan did an article on the Theroux documentary, here.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-190879153?selection=ac6883e6-0a98-45aa-a62d-f00e25070713#:~:text=The%20mainstream%20media%20continues%20to%20be%20clueless%20about%20how%20the%20left%20lost%20young%20men