Lessons from the manosphere

The testosterone-driven theatrical performance that occurs at the podcast tables of the manosphere signifies a rising trend, or perhaps something that has been there all along. Aside from the contents of their discussions, what stands out to me is how they discuss. A refusal to admit they're wrong, which is becoming somewhat of an epidemic, one that has manifested itself most in political discussions, in particular, on the topic of gender. It echoes at podcast tables: to be wrong is to lose one's identity, to be right is to dominate. The conversation is a battlefield, and to mistake it as anything other than that is naïve.

Though I disagree with nearly every one of their points and beliefs, the way they argue does remind me a little of my own attitude in discussions. 

In my reflection, I have noticed that much of the information I gather comes from social media, through YouTube videos, Instagram reels, and Spotify podcasts. At least, it feels like learning, but it’s really a closed loop. An algorithm designed to keep me in a vacuum by feeding me media that agrees with the last thing I just watched, unless I actively seek something contradictory. And sadly, the solitary nature of my consumption does not diminish my sense of community; a community that reinforces what I believe. Though taking a step back would allow me the room to acknowledge that I am alone, and not at a podcast table alongside my intellectual peers.

As I am now caught up in my own beliefs with no one to argue against me, these beliefs latch on to my inherent identity and refuse to let go, sedimenting into pillars of arrogance. In this light, a criticism or a disagreement means a stab at my very core, or at least I take it to be such. As a defence, my nervous system encourages me to weaponise my knowledge as tools in my arsenal.

For these men at the podcast table, questioning gender roles is a sucker punch to what they perceive to be an unquestionable law of nature and their only foothold in our material world. When put like that, it is no wonder that their discussions become heated, and they will never admit to being wrong. Still, while I am not often subjected to existential attacks of the same degree, I do recognise a similar instinct in myself. 

It's not particularly what I believe that stirs trouble; it is that the gap between my belief and identity is too tight to house disagreements. But avoiding each discussion would only serve to reinforce the vacuum. So, separating the two, or at least loosening the grip, would allow space for something else. Perhaps not agreement just yet, but maybe the possibility of being wrong is not catastrophic. 

On Students' Viewpoint, UU students share their views with the rest of the university community. Connor, a Master's student in Media & Culture, is one of the columnists invited for this space. You can also read the perspectives of staff members on Staff's Viewpoint and click here to check out the columns by students and staff in Dutch.