The Manosphere Is a Business Model — Radicalization for Profit.

Chisom reviews Louis Theroux’s Netflix documentary Inside the Manosphere and diagnoses what it missed — and what it got right. Using her Three Clarities Framework, she talks about the missed opportunity in that the documentary did not  name the systems driving manosphere radicalization: economic precarity, algorithmic profiteering, and the pipeline from self-help to fascism. While the documentary sparked important conversations, it risks serving as aspiration porn for the boys it should be warning. This isn’t entertainment, it’s a business model. And until we demand platform accountability, center the harm to boys and women, and address root causes, we’ll keep spectacularizing the problem instead of solving it. 

Visit my Website: https://www.chisomudeze.com/
My Newsletter: https://www.chisomudeze.com/newsletter

Transcript

0:05

I watched Louis Thoreau's Inside the Manosphere and I'm left with one question. Who was this documentary for? Because it wasn't for the boys being radicalized. It wasn't for the women being degraded and objectified. It wasn't to identify and unveil the social economic system behind the Manosphere. I think it was for the rest of us to watch. to be horrified and perhaps, perhaps to start a necessary conversation. And maybe this is the point of Thoreau's work. But for a topic this urgent, this violent, I'm not sure that that is enough. I'm Chisom Udeze and this is Overnight Wisdom, where I bring clarity to the complexity of leadership, power, and systems. Today, I want to talk about what that documentary showed, what it missed, and why, despite sparking important conversation, it still feels incomplete. Because here's what I know, the manosphere isn't entertainment. It's not fringe. It is the mainstream. And until we name the root causes, which is economic precarity, isolation, platform, complicity, algorithmic radicalization, uh a crisis of masculinity, we'll keep making documentaries that spectacularize the problem instead of dismantling it. Let's begin. So what did the documentary show? It showed the men. Theroux all spent time with manosphere influences. one of them was wanted by the police at the time of filming and he was operating out of spain two of them at least promote the concept of one-way monogamy men can cheat women can't basically a bunch of people who fundamentally believe that the value of their manhood is based on how they can subdue women And they said exactly what you'd expect. They said things like women should not vote, that they would disown gay sons. They had antisemitic theories. They were very violent and abusive to Jewish people. They talked about the matrix and this matrix controlling men and they also talked about feminism destroying masculinity. Now, Thoreau's approach is he allows them talk. He asks them really soft, easy questions. And he also showed in the film, like slow motion car shots you know, like a lot of luxury aesthetics and a lot of admiring fans. So for me, watching this never haven't been previously acquainted with his approach. I found it incredibly infuriating. And of course, after that, I looked up his work. I've spoken to quite a number of people who know of him. And this is apparently how he works. He gives subjects enough rope to hang themselves. And I also want to name that Netflix is a global streaming platform. So for people who previously know his work, Apparently through BBC, it's easy to understand what you're walking into but for a lot of people who might not know his work, this can also be quite jarring. Now back to how he approaches this work where giving them enough rope so they can hang themselves. In some context, this works. Yeah, you let people reveal themselves through their own contradictions and I think he did in a sense. But here is the problem. This men in many ways, for most of them do not contradict themselves. They perform loudly, confidently, unapologetically. It is clear they are grifters, but they are confident in their grifting. My concern is in the entire documentary, there was no notes of condemnation. And when that does not happen, the documentary risks serving as aspiration porn for the very boys that are being targeted. And as a boy mom and as somebody who has uh nephews that I care deeply about who are teenagers and you know just people in my life in general who have young men this is frightening. have already heard from young men who watched this and thought that they don't really see anything wrong with the men being profiled. Yeah, they thought they were silly. But that was it. Now let that sit. The documentary was supposed to expose toxicity. Instead, it made this man in some way look successful. They have women. They have influence, they have money, they have power, they have luxury cars and swarming fans. They are adored by young boys on the streets. So for boys who are isolated, who are insecure, who are in economically precarious situation, it looks aspirational. And the Documentary does very little to dissuade young boys from engaging with this manosphere. Why? It doesn't show the harm, it doesn't show the entire ecosystem that is toxic, it doesn't show the boys that are being radicalized and how this affects their lives and the people around them. It also does not show the systems that enable it or the women who have to deal with the consequences of the manosphere. Now I want to use my three clarities framework to diagnose the structural problem because it's precisely what it is. It's not a personality problem. It's not a few guys problem. It is a structural problem. So first I'm going to start with the first part of my framework, which is identity clarity. So basically with this, I ask who are this man? In many ways, the documentary frames them as they are damage grifters trauma survivors who built an armor. Thoreaux talks about them evangelizing an outlook that they created as a survival strategy. And this is true, but because the reality is that this men are capitalists, right? uh Harrison person, one of the manospere influencers openly admits that he's always been a salesman and that this type of content gets attention and with the attention he can be more famous and he can get more money. So who are they? They are trauma survivors, absolutely. And they are also grifters. And those things coexist. I think it's important to understand that this men are not just damaged, they are profiting from a system that is designed to function as it is. And this is essentially a business model. Andrew Tate who runs some kind of online university, I think it's called the Real World, charges $49 per month and students are incentivized to recruit new members. So essentially flooding algorithms with Tate's contents. he's reportedly made over a hundred million dollars. Harrison Funnels. followers to Telegram pushing financial products and only fans subscriptions for a commission. And Thoreaux I think in the documentary also invested $500 into the platform and within a month the entire money was gone. So this is not just an ideology that is toxic. It is also a business model and the documentary barely interrogates the business model. So we have to also ask who follows this manosphere influences. They are followed by boys, teenagers, and men who feel left behind. We see that they have followers as young as 13. We see uh them being swarmed by young boys on the streets of New York. These are little children. They are not adults making informed decisions. They are children being radicalized. And here is what research shows. So TikTok and YouTube short accounts that were created as teenage boys were served toxic manosphere content within the first 23 minutes, even if they only searched for fitness or mental health content. Imagine that. And there was another experiment that created a fresh uh TikTok account as a teenage boy. Without liking or searching for manosphere content, the algorithm served Andrew State's videos. After watching two less extremes clips, the account was flooded and the next time it opened, the first four posts were by Andrew Tate. It's important that we remember that boys don't enter the manosphere because they hate women. They are often searching for fitness advice, how to make money, dating tips, mental health supports even, and then the algorithm pulls them deeper. The documentary did not show this pipeline, and I think it's important to also have this conversation. So context clarity, what systems created this? The documentary treats the Manosphere as a personality problem, as if these influencers are just like bad eggs, know, they are men saying bad things, It's important to understand that these men are symptoms of a disease and the disease is number one economic precarity. Young men cannot afford homes. They can't afford families. They can't afford futures In the UK, research shows that men aged between 16 and 29 are now the cohorts most likely to believe that men have it harder than women, that feminism has done more harm than good, and that people like Andrew Tate raise important points about real threats to male identity. If these young men think Andrew Tate has a point, we're monumentally screwed. But why do they believe this? They believe this because wages are stagnant, housing is unaffordable, and the economic ladder their fathers climbed no longer exists for them. And when you are economically desperate, are easy to target. The manosphere - tells young boys, you can't afford to be a provider. That's not your fault. The system is rigged. Women and feminism destroyed your future. And it gives them somebody to hate. And unfortunately, that somebody are women and girls. Number two, social isolation. Boys spend more time online than with people. Community structures that used to support young men, so things like sports clubs, youth groups, mentorship, they have collapsed. And the manosphere, unfortunately, is filling that void. It offers them a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, a script of masculinity in a world where traditional scripts no longer work. Number three, the algorithms have been radicalized. Platforms profit from engagements and controversy drives engagements. Research shows that TikTok's algorithm is more aggressive. So YouTube shorts, for example, accounts created as teenage boys were recommended 61.5 % toxic content on average. Andrew Tate encouraged its followers to post the most controversial clips. to provoke arguments because algorithms reward engagements. Before he was banned from TikTok in 2022, his videos had reached over 12 billion views. 12 billion views. That's a lot of views. And platforms profit from this. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Telegram, and X. And the documentary does nothing to challenge them. Number four, patriarchy. Traditional masculinity says that your work is your ability to provide. Your status is your sexual body count. That if you are vulnerable, it's a sign of weakness and that emotions are for women. But most young men can't achieve this. They can't afford to provide. They don't have the bodies, the wealth, the women that the man of sphere promises. And instead of questioning the model, they blame feminism. They blame women. And this is not self-help, this is how radicalization happens. So power clarity, who benefits and who pays. So if we look at the beneficiaries, the influencers benefit. They benefit through subscriptions, courses, podcast ads, affiliate links, and exploiting women, selling only fans' content, at the same time degrading the women who produce it. Platforms are also beneficiaries. So YouTube, TikTok, X, Telegram, they profit from the engagement. The algorithm doesn't care if voice are radicalized. They just care if people are watching. And of course, we also have to name far right political movements. the documentary ends by showing these influences mainstreaming things like antisemitism, authoritarianism and white nationalism. And this is the pipeline. Boys set out looking for self-help and then they are reeled into misogyny and eventually fascism. So who pays the price? Boys. They are so the fantasy they can't afford. They are promised dominance, wealth, women, and they take $49 a month courses that don't deliver. Women also pay. They are dehumanized. They are objectified. They are degraded. They are blamed for men's failures. They are harmed. Teachers actually report that boys are barking at female teachers. And they do this while repeating misogynistic phrases. And this is a result of systematic dehumanization that the manosphere produces. The rest of us also pay because this pipeline leads to violence. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service now identifies violent misogyny as a form of ideological extremism. In 2020, a young man in Canada was charged with terrorism for a violent attack targeting women. And this isn't abstract. This is no longer fringe. This is real harm. And the documentary does not center it. Now I think in many ways the documentary was a missed opportunity. did that I found problematic and yes, I understand that this is Theroux - style, but the reality is that this is such a big and violent problem and people all across the world are going to see it and it's not going to be clear. So every single person who watches it And especially the young kids who this radicalization targets, it's not going to be clear to them that he's giving this grifters a rope so they can hang themselves. is that it platforms this manosphere influencers without sufficiently challenging them. His approach is very soft, he lets the subjects hang themselves and I guess this approach is good when contradictions reveal the truth. these men they perform and risks amplifying them. to me was that it glamorizes what it critiques. So when you have slow motion car shots or showing luxury apartments, you're showing expensive watches, you've seen the swarming fans and the people who really adore this man, you're glamorizing something that is inherently toxic and it is not critique in a sense, especially for people who do not grasp how the Thoreaux works. In many ways, you can also look at this as free marketing. It also doesn't center the harm. We barely hear from the women who are entangled in this Manusphere universe. uh We don't see the boys who have been radicalized and the consequences of those radicalization. We don't also see the teachers who are dealing with the fallout in classrooms. And we also don't see the families at home who are having to navigate the impact of the manosphere. who we hear from unfortunately are the influencers at length with cinematic flair. I also want to name something here. I understand the concept of giving them a rope to hang themselves and if you watch this you will see that these men are grifters but the reality is they have millions of followers. How many of these followers will watch this and be like, yep, they are grifters, I'm done following, I'm done paying. so that concerns me deeply. Another challenge of course is that it doesn't name the systems. What I have seen so far by people's reaction is that they isolate this man as problematic. They don't necessarily talk about the systems that allow this man to blossom in tribes. So let's think about things like economic precarity. We can talk about the radicalization of algorithms. We can also talk about the platforms that actually profits from this radicalization through viral shorts or whatever it is you're sharing. Patriarchy is also a problem as well as fascism and the documentary treats the manuscript just as personality problems when it is in fact a structural problem. So what do we need? We don't need spectacle We don't need to further elevate or amplify this man what we need is structural analysis I think the reason why this documentary feels incomplete is specifically because it is incomplete. So I think we need documentaries that ask questions like what economic conditions creates male insecurity? We can look at things like it is a reality that a lot of young men can't afford homes. We can see that wages are on the floor, right? Wages are stagnant. It's not growing. And we can also talk about why precarity is concentrated among young people. What is happening? what has happened in the past couple of decades? And also, why does capitalism profit from that insecurity? Because essentially, this is what is happening. I think we can also ask important questions around how do algorithms radicalize, right? We can show the pipeline. We can map it strategically. figuratively, literally, right? We can interview the researchers who've done a lot of amazing work. They've done sock puppets oh experiments. We can show how a boy searching for fitness advice, I mean fitness advice, ends up watching Andrew Tate within an hour of searching for fitness freaking advice. Okay. We can ask questions like who profits from misogyny and how can we stop it? Right? We need to follow the money. It's all about the money. We need to follow the multi-level marketing scheme because this is essentially what this is. It is a business model. We need to show the platform and how they profit. We need to show the only fans exploitation and we need to start demanding accountability. need policies in place. This is not a fight that parents can take at home alone or communities can do alone. We also need the government. We need policies to get to work to solve in this problem because this is a virus and it's quickly spreading. And it's also important to center the harm. We need to interview the women, we need to interview the teachers, we need to interview the boys who got out. Show what it costs in real lives, not just an abstract toxic culture. What is the cost of radicalization? What is the cost of the manosphere? And we need to name fascism for exactly what it is, right? we can't be shocked that the manosphere is antisemitic and it is upheld by authoritarianism and white nationalism. They are not shocking asides. This is radicalization and it leads to violence. So for what I'm sitting with is what I know. I do know that the documentary has sparked important conversation and perhaps that's the function of the Rose work to give us access, to horrify us, to start a dialogue. If you know anything about the Manosphere, it might not give you much, but nonetheless, I feel like as much as I knew about the Manosphere, which was a fair bit, this got me enraged enough to start having a conversation about it. But I guess I'm also having a conversation about it because it feels incomplete. It doesn't feel. It is incomplete. Because this topic is urgent. This topic is violent. And this topic is skyrocketing in terms of how quickly ideologies of the manosphere is spreading. And I think one thing I really want all of us to remember is that the men profiled as symptoms of a larger systemic problem. We know they are grifters, but with the million of followers that loved them feel that way when they watch this. Some of the boys I already checked in with didn't think that they were all that bad, you know? As worse they thought, they're just joking. They're just being boys. A lot of them saw successful men, men with money, influence, power. And that's incredibly dangerous because Theroux - approach doesn't always translate for the young men. I understand that parents will see this and be horrified. I'm a parent myself and I am horrified. But will young boys watch this and go, yeah, I don't want all that money. I don't want that influence. I don't want that power. How likely is that? So this is what makes this incredibly dangerous by centering these influencers, letting them talk and hoping that everyone who engages with this will see it. It's also important that we recognize that the Manosphere is not fringe, it is mainstream. were photographed with political leaders. So until we name the road, causes which is basically things like social isolation algorithmic engagement platform complicity and socioeconomic precarity We'll keep making these documentaries that make a spectacle of One tiny lens of the problem rather than dismantle it So what can we do? a uh parent, talk to your sons, talk to your daughters. Ask them what they're watching, who they follow. Watch one video together and ask what do think he's selling? You know who benefits if you believe this? Offer alternative content. There are YouTubers and podcasters who debunk Manosphere myth. Seek them out. If you are an educator, name it when you see it. Boys barking at female teachers isn't boys being boys. It's boys being radicalized. Create spaces for boys to talk about masculinity without shame. They need models of manhood that aren't Andrew Tate. If you are a platform, transparency is important. I think the government needs to demand that you show us how your algorithm works. Accountability is important. Content moderation that actually works will go a long way, not after billions of views, but before. We have to demonetize hate. We need to stop rewarding misogyny with ad revenue. If you are a man, challenge other men. When your friends share a clip or view that dehumanizes women, you should ask, do you actually believe this or are you just performing? Model something different, show boys and men that being a man doesn't require dominance, wealth or degrading women. If you're a woman, don't engage alone. This man profits from outrage. Collective action, things like reporting, organizing, demanding platform accountability is more effective than individual arguments. Governments. I don't know that any government person is listening to this, but I hope you are. If you know some government officials, send this to them. We need to put mitigative policies in place. We need to regulate platforms. We need to mandate algorithmic transparency. We need to enforce content moderation standards, even before virality. And also, needs to be funding for mental health support, for education, for community programming for young men, because the next generation of boys are being radicalized right now. And we are literally running out of time to stop it. As a boy mom, I am terrified. So we need to collectively do better. The manosphere isn't a personality problem. It is a structural problem. It's capitalism monetizing male insecurity. It's patriarchy weaponizing boys pain. It is algorithms radicalizing for profit. It is fascism recruiting through misogyny. The documentary gave us access. It started conversations. But conversations are not enough. We need structural analysis. We need structural solutions. We need accountability. We need action. So it's quite important that we stop amplifying and spectacularizing the problem. We need to start dismantling the systems that uphold them. Because this is not entertainment. This is radicalization in broad daylight. And we need to treat it as such. this is overnight wisdom. If this episode challenged you, if it made you think differently about what you're seeing online or in the boys and men around you, don't keep it to yourself. Share this episode with someone who needs to hear it. It could be a parent, it could be an educator, it could be a friend raising sons. Because the manosphere thrives in isolation. It tells boys they are alone, that no one understands, that the world is against them. We break that isolation by talking, by naming what's happening, by offering something better. And if you found this analysis useful, here's what you can do. Subscribe to Overnight Wisdom wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes drop every Wednesday. also join The Weekly Clarity newsletter at chisomudeze.com. It's C-H-I-S-O-M-U-D-E-Z or Z-E dot com, where I bring the same structural analysis to leadership, power and systems every week. and if you work with organizations that needs this kind of thinking, whether it's navigating toxic workplace culture, building inclusive leadership, or understanding how systems actually work, reach out. I'd love to hear from you. I work with leaders who are tired of surface level solutions and ready for structural change. You can find out more about me and my work at chisomudeze.com Until next week, get clarity, demand accountability, and do not let the algorithms do your thinking for you. I'm Chisom Udeze and I'm really glad you're here.