By Omolara Okunoren (she/her)

With contributions from Elio Wilder (they/them)

Content warning: discussions of bigotry and misogynistic extremism

Although our social media landscape has vastly changed over the past fifteen years, the internet culture of the alt-right ‘manosphere’ that promotes anti-feminist and bigoted beliefs is ever-present in online spaces. From anti-woke and anti-social justice warrior videos of the 2010s to misogynistic and anti-feminist podcasts of the early 2020s, we are living in a recurring nightmare of online extremism, hate, and discrimination.

THE ERA OF ‘EDGY’ YOUTUBE

Does anyone remember the dreadful era of ‘Social Justice Warriors’ (SJW) or ‘feminist cringe’ videos that dominated YouTube in the 2010s? These videos typically consisted of progressives (branded SJWs), being portrayed as over-sensitive ‘snowflakes’ because they vehemently disagreed with opposing opinions. YouTube commenters mocked the SJWs and their emotive reactions to discriminatory and bigoted opinions, rather than considering the content of their responses. These videos’ popularity made ‘snowflake’ into a meme; it became an unfavorable term loosely tossed around to anyone who took offence to racism, homophobia, misogyny, and other forms of prejudice.

Another key feature in the videos mentioned above is their promotion of right-winged individuals, who were able to increase their influence by appearing in viral videos debating and ‘owning SJWs with facts over feelings.’ Bigots such as Ben Shapiro used clickbait titles such as ‘Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Every College Snowflake’ to drive engagement. Such videos featured Shapiro attacking moderately progressive social stances, such as pro-choice and LGBTQ+ rights. College students, simply asking Shapiro questions about current affairs and social issues, were portrayed as snowflakes or SJWs. In contrast, Shapiro (benefiting from media training unlike his interviewees) was described by commenters as presenting ‘logic’ and ‘common sense’. These videos were widely circulated amongst young men, normalising bigotry, and making parts of the internet feel like an online witch hunt. Those who expressed offence to right-winged views were dismissed and stamped with the negative label of a ‘crybaby’ and ‘snowflake.’ Outright hostility towards differing views allowed (and continues to allow) harmful views to circulate unchecked.

Our lived experiences and human rights were debated for the entertainment of those who were largely unimpacted by the outcome. Yet, we were made a laughing stock for defending our own and others' rights.

It is then not a coincidence that alongside SJWs emerged ‘edge lords’, who troll by using humour to trivialise controversial and taboo topics. Intentionally provocative, Edge-lord's humour consisted of saying derogatory slurs and mocking marginalised communities. Prominent perpetrators of this crime were YouTubers, LeafyIsHere and iDubbbz, whose prejudiced and disgusting views were disguised as ‘just jokes’. This nonchalant attitude was significant on two levels. First, it stigmatised those taking offence at these jokes, branding them SJWs or ‘feminazis’ who would never be ‘one of the boys’ i.e. respected or taken seriously. Second, it manipulated a variety of young and impressionable individuals into believing that ‘jokes’ at the expense of marginalised communities were socially acceptable. This ‘anti-woke’ content has, and continues to, lead individuals down an alt-right pipeline via social media algorithms. As controversial content receives greater interaction, it is favoured by algorithms designed to maximise user engagement. Thus, problematic content has an increased probability of being recommended, even alongside only peripherally related content. This pushes individuals further towards more extreme bigoted content. Casual viewing of ‘humour’ videos mocking socially progressive individuals can quickly lead to propaganda content for violent ideologies that infiltrate people’s belief systems, values, and lives.

THE MANOSPHERE

Why were these hateful videos so popular and appealing, especially to impressionable male audiences? A significant reason could be that bonding over shared controversial views creates a sense of belonging and community in an often isolating and individualistic society. This community has evolved into an online ‘manosphere’ primarily comprising of angry men, attacking feminism and social progression and blaming these as the cause of their issues. Prominent voices within the manosphere fearmonger individuals, pushing narratives that social progress seeks to harm men and that social regress is necessary to prevent this. Anger more likely stemming from social factors, such as the confines of toxic masculinity, gender roles under capitalism, and social isolation, is unduly projected onto marginalised communities. Ironically these issues are largely created by patriarchy and related systems of oppression, yet social movements designed to address these are instead denounced as the cause.

It is worth noting that these videos proliferated online discourse at a time when fourth-wave feminism was making significant progress; opening conversations around misogyny on and offline, and transforming ideas around racial identity, romance, and sexual relationships to name a few.

PODCASTS: A NEW FEAR

Podcasts have a variety of academic, educational and accessibility benefits, with an opportunity to learn and explore new topics. Podcasts can be disseminated via viral short clips on Instagram, YouTube Shorts, and TikTok, in addition to the mass engagement attracted by full-length podcasts. Unfortunately, there is a genre of podcasts that perpetuates negativity, hate, and discrimination. Andrew Tate, Candace Owens, Fresh and Fit, SNEAKO, Whatever and many more, appear on or host these podcasts. The social media landscape has transformed, but the manosphere and socially conservative content continue to dominate these new social media features, pushing individuals towards an extreme-right pipeline. These beliefs are often a ‘wolf in sheep's clothing;’ hateful opinions are disguised by podcast hosts as advice for those wanting success, stability, and happiness in their lives.

A trope in these podcasts is women being invited to talk, only to be shamed if the hosts consider them to be ‘low-value’ women. According to various misogynistic podcasters, a low-value woman is a feminist, sex worker, or promiscuous. These are women who do not align with the ideal patriarchal role for women – submissive and exclusively but wholly available to a single male partner. On the podcast, they are often verbally maltreated and bullied, especially if they do not hold similar views to the content creators. One of the hosts, Myron, from Fresh and Fit attempted to belittle and generalise Brittany Renner and “women like her” for "not being special" and accused her of being a ‘gold digger.’ Women on these shows are often depicted as lacking intelligence, if they question, don’t understand, or disagree with the hosts’ views. Concerningly, the degradation of women draws the audience to the podcasts just as the SJW videos appealed to viewers due to their mocking of feminists. Comments like ‘Why do these women put themselves into this situation?’ highlight the audience’s awareness of the hateful and toxic nature of the content. Yet, their continued engagement allows the content to spread misogyny further while, benefiting the creators who encourage and profit from misogyny and other forms of intersecting discrimination.

Another popular trope includes so-called ‘experts’ providing ‘advice' on romantic relationships to the audience. These 'experts' feel threatened by feminism and social justice movements, calling them the taproot of 'misandrist culture' and using fearmongering to villainise social progress. Such podcasters often advocate for the removal of the rights and autonomy of women and queer people in legislation and society. Degrading metaphors are often used to strip women of their humanity, such as comparing their number of sexual partners to ‘locks and keys’ or cars. This objectification promotes the characterisation of romantic relationships as a power imbalance where women are expected to serve and respect their male significant other, who is superior to them and essential to their lives.

The hosts are often men, with fame and money, such as Andrew Tate. These qualities often attract audiences and delude them into believing that this toxic advice will grant them the same opportunities and capital. Andrew Tate’s misogynistic view of women has led individuals, including impressionable teenage boys, to idolise and worship Tate and his lifestyle. He promotes his views as the answer to solving their problems and insecurities. Misogynistic opinions can gain some legitimacy through the support of 'anti-feminist' women podcasters such as Pearl Davis, known as 'Just Pearly Things.'

MONETISING MISOGYNY

Right-wing influencers often use their platforms to sell products to their audiences. For example, Andrew Tate provides a variety of pay-to-access online services which he advertises through his podcast. Creators can also make money from sponsorships, ads, in-person appearances, and physical products such as books. Tate and others like him have found a way to profit off hate, discrimination, and anger. This business model takes advantage of both the high interaction, algorithm-friendly nature of controversial content and the desperation of their vulnerable audience seeking a quick fix to their problems. The outcome is money put into the pockets of problematic creators and the perpetuation of hate.

CONCLUSION

Online extremism is still prevalent but has shifted from the SJW cringe and Edgelord humour videos to toxic cross-platform content that profits from bigotry. Financial incentives, polarising political climates, and sympathetic algorithms have made bigoted, harmful content more numerous and accessible than ever, leading a new generation of vulnerable young people down a spiral of hate, insecurity, and alt-right ideology.

Social media influencers want to reap the benefits of producing and supplying toxic media to their target audiences. However, there is a glimmer of hope. In the UK, there have been discussions of an Online Safety Bill to require social media companies to moderate harmful content or face legal action for non-compliance. Some social media companies have already banned or restricted problematic creators; Andrew Tate has been banned from YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram.

As a community, we need to promote healthy masculinity to reduce the insecurity, isolation, and anger that drives men to seek solace in the manosphere. Schools need to teach media literacy so young people can understand how engagement is monetised, detect hidden agendas, and avoid problematic pipelines. With a multi-faceted approach, we can combat online bigotry, and create a safer, healthier, and more positive social media landscape and society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

● Askanius, T. (2021). On Frogs, Monkeys, and Execution Memes: Exploring the Humor-Hate Nexus at the Intersection of Neo-Nazi and Alt-Right Movements in Sweden. Television & new media, 22 (2), pp.147–165. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1177/1527476420982234.

● Barker, K. and Jurasz, Olga author. (2018). Online Misogyny as Hate Crime : A Challenge for Legal Regulation? / by Kim Barker and Olga Jurasz. First edition. Boca Raton, FL : Routledge.

● Bates, L. (2020). Men who hate women : from incels to pickup artists, the truth about extreme misogyny and how it affects us all / Laura Bates. London : Simon & Schuster.

● Blake, K. R. and Brooks, R. C. (2023). Societies should not ignore their incel problem. Trends in cognitive sciences, 27 (2), pp.111–113. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1016/j.tics.2022.11.007.

● Bubola, E. and Kwai, I. (2023). British schools battle toxic online influencer Educator: Andrew Tate 'brainwashing a generation of boys' Hartford, Conn: Tribune Publishing Company, LLC.

● Bryant, L. V. (2020). The YouTube Algorithm and the Alt-Right Filter Bubble. Open Information Science, 4 (1), pp.85–90. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1515/opis-2020-0007

● Byerly, C. M. (2020). Incels online reframing sexual violence. The communication review (Yverdon, Switzerland), 23 (4), pp.290–308. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1080/10714421.2020.1829305.

● Caiani, M. and Parenti, L. (2013). European and American Extreme Right Groups and the Internet. Abingdon: Routledge., pp.xiv–xiv. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.4324/9781315580845.

● Casey, Alex (2022). Who is Andrew Tate and why is everybody talking about him now? [Online] The Spinoff. Available at: https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/16-08-2022/who-is-andrew-tate-and-why-is-everybody-talking-about-him-now [Accessed 14 Jun. 2023].

● Clark, M. (2022). Women are calling out ‘sexist’ male podcast hosts with viral TikTok trend. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/sexist-male-podcast-tiktok-trend-b2010670.html [Accessed 14 Jun. 2023].

● Das, S. (2022). How TikTok bombards young men with misogynistic videos. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/06/revealed-how-tiktok-bombards-young-men-with-misogynistic-videos-andrew-tate [Accessed 14 Jun. 2023].

● Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere. Men and masculinities, 22 (4), pp.638–657. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1177/1097184X17706401.

● Gaudette, T., Scrivens, R. and Venkatesh, V. (2022). The Role of the Internet in Facilitating Violent Extremism: Insights from Former Right-Wing Extremists. Terrorism and political violence, 34 (7), pp.1339–1356. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1080/09546553.2020.1784147.

● Hodge, E. and Hallgrimsdottir, H. (2020). Networks of Hate: The Alt-right, "Troll Culture", and the Cultural Geography of Social Movement Spaces Online. Journal of borderlands studies, 35 (4), pp.563–580. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1080/08865655.2019.1571935.

● Hokka, J. (2021). PewDiePie, racism and Youtube’s neoliberalist interpretation of freedom of speech. Convergence (London, England), 27(1), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520938602

● James, M. (2020). Racism, the media ... and alternative (sonic) culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(13), 2372–2378. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1784451

● Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568

● Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 930–946.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130

● Michaels, A. (2023). FROM ZERO TO HATE IN JUST A TIK AND A TOK: A JOURNEY DOWN THE 'ALT-RIGHT PIPELINE. Moment (New York, N.Y.), 49 (1), pp.39–39.

● Munn, L. (2019). Alt-right pipeline: Individual journeys to extremism online. First Monday, 24 (6). [Online]. Available at: doi:10.5210/fm.v24i6.10108.

● Pavica Sheldon, Philipp Rauschnabel, James M. Honeycutt. (2019). The Dark Side of Social Media. San Diego: Elsevier Science. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1016/C2017-0-04063-6.

● Sugiura, L. (2021). The Incel Rebellion : The Rise of the Manosphere and the Virtual War Against Women. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1108/9781839822544.

● Slatton, B. C. and Brailey, Carla D. editor. (2018). Women and inequality in the 21st century / edited by Brittany C. Slatton, Carla D. Brailey. 1st ed. London : Routledge.

● Winter, C. et al. (2020). Online extremism: Research trends in internet activism, radicalization, and counter-strategies. International journal of conflict and violence, 14 (2), pp.1–20. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.4119/ijcv-3809.