I'm finding the reaction to Louis Theroux's manosphere documentary quite interesting. Obviously the mansophere itself is throwing an absolute tantrum, but also in more liberal spaces there seems to be a lot of criticism of it that I don't fully agree with.
I've seen a lot of criticisms (similar to Adolescence) that a woman should have done this OR that the documentary should have focused on women. I actually disagree, with the caveat that I think there SHOULD also be women exploring this subject and discussions focusing on the women involved in these spaces. But I think that, realistically, only a man could have made this. Not only that, I think it's important for men to explore and discuss this topic-- to discuss what this means for men, because it's men who are the problem.
The depths to which these manosphere men fundamentally do NOT respect women, and see them as subhuman, means they'd NEVER have agreed to be interviewed by a woman. Theroux was able to use the fact that he's a man (as well as his typical unthreatening persona) in order to gain access, lower their defenses, and basically allow them to show who they really are, and their true motivations. If it had been a woman it might have shown something else, but tbh we did get that to some extent by seeing how these men talk to women in their lives.
Something I thought was interesting was how all the men attempted to appeal to Theroux's sense of masculinity-- assuming that, like them, this is something Theroux would value or that he'd suffer from the same insecurities as them. Like a lot of men I've met, Theroux strikes me as a man who mostly values his intellect or his 'art,' rather than masculinity in the traditional sense. Which isn't to say men like that can't be misogynistic, but I got the feeling that Theroux found it almost funny (as did I) that they'd constantly try and posture about their bulging muscles or big cars or access to a certain kind of woman. Which clearly Theroux could not give less of a fuck about, but this possibility just doesn't fit into the worldviews of these men.
Anyway I think this was really revelatory about how cripplingly insecure these men are, how shallow their worlds are. I think to most well-adjusted, intelligent adults a man like Louis Theroux would be much more worthy of respect and admiration than "HS Ticky Tocky," which has been proven by the well-deserved slew of public ridicule these men are now facing as a result of this. I've often thought that a good way to tackle these kinds of men is to have other men portray them as objects of ridicule-- they don't care about what women say, so it will have no effect, but they do care, to an EXTREME degree, about what other men say about them.
As for focusing on the women involved in the manosphere-- I think the doc shows how limited this possibility is, which is in itself revelatory. These men control EVERYTHING about these women, and we see this literally when one man prevents his female employee from speaking with Theroux, and also with the way they dictate (and are present for) any interview with their girlfriends. All of the women involved in this world depend financially on the men, and would likely not agree to be part of a documentary without permission (and likely, the presence of those men.) I think this is still an angle worth exploring, but would require a really different approach imo. I also suspect such a documentary would carry a certain risk of public response contributing to victim-blaming narratives.
Other criticisms I keep seeing are that this is 'platforming' these men, or that it's 'not saying anything new.' First of all these men already have massive platforms that are growing daily, that's the whole problem. And yeah if you specifically study the manosphere none of this will be new to you-- but a lot of it was new to me, at least, and I'm generally aware of what the manosphere is. Simply showing someone's beliefs isn't harmful in and of itself, but ignoring them entirely definitely is. They should be exposed for what they are.
Basically I think the risk of people watching a lunatic say that he fully believes pop musician Sam Smith is an agent of devil-worshippers and going "hmm the guy makes a good point..." is fairly minimal, but the chance of people who weren't aware of either the existence or the extent of this problem now seeing it as a cause for concern is much higher. In particular, parents, who previously might have tuned out their kids talking about "HS ticky tocky" the same way they would "skibidi toilet" but now almost certainly won't do so. One of the most effective things about the doc for me was in showing exactly how exploitative these influencers are (and knowingly so) especially when it comes to children.
While I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made of both, I still would recommend any parent of young boys to watch both this documentary and Adolescence. I've spoken with fathers who, after watching Adolescence, are now petrified of how this online culture might affect their sons, and much more willing to look at themselves as fathers and as men. Which imo is a good thing. Obviously yes it's "more important" how this affects women and girls, but also the change needs to be with men, the problem is with men-- not with the women and girls who are victims of this.
Women have been talking about this for years with little effect. Yes, that sucks, but it doesn't suck as much or as urgently as the fact that real women and girls are being harmed as a result of this culture. This is work that men should be doing, and conversations men should be having, not just women.
ellievsbear
izzy806
gracieabrams
areudirty
stormborns
theartofmadeline
snowghoul
pixelskylines
