The manosphere - a diverse ecosystem of anti-feminist and male supremacist online communities, influencers, and platforms - has emerged over the past decade as a significant site of gendered harm. From men’s rights activist (MRA) networks and incel forums to “red pill” influencers and anti-feminist social media channels, these online environments shape how some men and boys understand masculinity, relationships, and gender relations. In some cases, they contribute to the radicalisation of participants into misogynist extremism, with consequences that extend across online and offline contexts.
A recent conference in Australia focused on the manosphere. Titled “Masculinities and Misogyny Online: Current Findings and Future Directions in Research on the Manosphere”, the conference took place over July 13-14 2026 in Melbourne. Over 120 people attended in person, with a further 125-140 people attending online.
The conference was offered as part of the research project “The manosphere: pathways and patterns of participation”, based at Deakin University and funded by the Australian Research Council. The conference was organised by Dr Benjamin Hemmings, with assistance from Professor Michael Flood, Dr Vivian Gerrand, Professor Debbie Ging, and Associate Professor Joshua Roose.
Across these two days, we heard a rich and diverse set of perspectives that have deepened our understanding of the manosphere: how it operates, why it appeals, how it is changing, and what can be done in response. The following summarises some of the key insights of the conference. The conference program (minus the abstracts) can be downloaded here.
Contexts
We heard that pro-patriarchal advocates and ideologies are hardly new, and that the modern manosphere has important precursors over at least the past four decades (Debbie Ging)
We heard that the manosphere is an international phenomenon, extending well beyond the Global North, with male supremacist influencers in the Global South, and patterns of both international adoption and glocalisation of manosphere narratives. We heard too about the manosphere’s intersections with the transnational gender ideologies of tech oligarchs, strongman politicians and the far right (Debbie Ging).
Pathways, pull factors
Across the conference, we have developed a much richer understanding of the pathways into the manosphere.
- We heard about patterns in men’s pathways to participation in the manosphere, including the influence of men's online interests and communities; the performances of hypermasculinity by online creators; the affective pull of manosphere content; the search for advice on relationships and identity; the role of recommender algorithms; and the influence of peer networks. (Ben Hemmings, Michael Flood, Vivian Gerrand, and Debbie Ging).
We have repeatedly heard that the appeal of the manosphere is not simply ideological, but also social.
- We heard that one of the manosphere's appeals is the promise of community, in a context where economic and social shifts have stripped away community and where social media companies strive not to generate connection but attention. (Simon Copland).
- We have also learnt that men's existing friendships can provide the platforms through which they encounter, consume and act on manosphere content (Ben Hemmings). Yes, loneliness can drive participation in the manosphere, but so can men’s friendships. Engagement with the manosphere is often produced and sustained collectively, through men's friendship groups and other homosocial interactions.
Characteristics
Across many presentations, we gained a more detailed picture of what the manosphere looks like in practice and how it is experienced.
- We heard about the masculinity content young men are seeing, what they think about it, and how this engagement is shaping their health and relationships (Krista Fisher). Many young men’s relationships to stereotypical masculinity content are ambivalent, and their engagement has negative long term impacts.
- We saw how rigid, patriarchal forms of masculinity are represented and communicated to tween boys through gaming influencer content on YouTube, including scripts for dominating and aggressive behaviour, gendered hierarchies, and sexist norms. (Lauren Gurrieri and Taylor Hardwick).
- We heard that parents underestimate their children’s exposure to fringe and radical content online. While under 1% of parents of children aged 11-17 say their children have seen misogynist content, 37% of children of roughly that age say they’ve seen it. And parents who have seen and shared fringe and radical content online also are likely to more likely to have children who have seen such content online. (Anthony Morgan).
- We were alerted to key forms of harm associated with online spaces, including deepfake abuse of women and girls, exposure to sexual, violent and extremist content, and sextortion of young men. And to social media companies’ use of outrage as a business model. (Julie Inman Grant)
We explored more sophisticated accounts of the significance of the manosphere and its uptake. Rather than treating the manosphere as an isolated online phenomenon, we have been shown how institutions, including schools, can participate in the reproduction and legitimisation of misogynistic norms (Stephanie Wescott).
Another important thread running through the conference has been the relationship between the manosphere, the far right and violent extremism.
- We have heard that while many manosphere influencers offer only individualist solutions to the ills they diagnose, there are crossover, far-right advocates who offer far more collective, structural solutions. They appeal to both negative and positive emotions, and invite participation in collective political efforts, and for these reasons they are far more dangerous (Benjamin Adams and Nathan Manning).
- We heard about the role of masculinisation in both the targeting of LGBTQIA+ populations and the recruitment strategies of violent extremist groups (Jared Dmello); and
- We heard of the powerful relationships between online misogyny, attitudes supportive of violence against women, and orientations towards violent extremism. Attitudes towards violent extremism are shaped above all by attitudes to violence against women, and in turn, attitudes to violence against women are shaped by misogynist attitudes. Gendered online environments (including manfluencer content, online dating, and pornography) are efficient cultivators of violence-permissive attitudes (Sara Meger).
Regarding violence:
- We have also deepened our understanding of how the manosphere is implicated in domestic and family violence (Lucy Nicholas). Including how it affirms domestic and family violence; how perpetrators draw on its ideologies to justify or support their violence; and the co-occurrence of men's violence against female partners and family members with other forms of public violence.
- We have heard of the profound impact of online abuse, including manosphere attacks, on women artists, family violence workers, social media influencers, journalists and writers, and the strategies they adopt in response: safety work, self-censorship, retreat, withdrawal, and pushing back (Vivian Gerrand and Nadia Faragaab)
- Boys and men are active agents in the perpetration of harm, not unknowing, passive victims. Schools have long been implicated in systems of injustice, and school practices and cultures can contribute to and reproduce manosphere ideologies. (Stephanie Wescott). Indeed, schools may fail to respond effectively or at all to abuse and harm, thus condoning this behaviour and contributing to both perpetration and victimisation. (Naomi Pfitzner)
- We heard too about the use of narratives of hypermasculinity both in the US military and in ISIS’s combat efforts (Jared Dmello).
Prevention and intervention
Importantly, this conference has not only helped us understand the problem; it has also helped us think about solutions. Alongside understanding the problem, we devoted considerable attention to prevention and intervention.
- We have learnt about innovative online strategies, including Moonshot's large-scale digital campaigns designed to reach individuals on pathways towards misogynist extremism (Theresa Rajah). And in particular, about early interventions for those at risk of radicalisation, involving tailored one-on-one psychosocial support.
- We have been reminded that teachers are skilled, knowledgeable agents of learning and change in schools, whose experience and voices should be heard. (Stephanie Wescott)
- We have discussed the importance of equipping professionals, including teachers, to understand and respond to the increasing influence of the manosphere in schools. Well-designed professional development can improve educators’ understandings of the manosphere, their skills in responding to sexism and misogyny, and school policies and practices. (Naomi Pfitzner)
- We have also heard a range of complementary strategies for prevention and disengagement:
- Creating alternative forms of community (Simon Copland);
- Fostering disillusionment, given evidence that this can be a powerful motivation for disengagement among incels, through critical thinking and media literacy, and by facilitating opportunities and support for disengagement (Laura Doherty); and
- Developing exit forums that support people to leave and deradicalise from the manosphere (Joshua Thorburn).
- We have heard that behaviour change work with male perpetrators of domestic violence can offer positive models of how to hold individuals accountable for harmful behaviour while also addressing trauma (Lucy Nicholas). I am reminded here of work focused on ‘calling in’ men, offering an approach grounded in ‘compassionate accountability’, and highlighting what in a recent report I called a ‘care lens’, calling on men to care and for us to care for men.
- We heard about the need for creative and compassionate efforts to engage young men, including leveraging their desire for self-improvement and caring masculinities and producing alternative narratives. (Krista Fisher)
- We heard tough stories from the coalface of work to build safer digital environments that make harmful narratives harder to spread and easier to challenge (Julie Inman Grant). We learned of eSafety’s work in prevention, protection, and systemic change, including in battle with social media companies with wealth, stealth, and power.
- Finally, we have heard a compelling case for whole-of-system approaches, involving coordinated action across multiple levels of society (Shane Tas, Amanda Keddie, Jess Strickland, Tarang Chawla, and Stephanie Wescot). These include respectful relationships education, the use of digital platforms and online conversations, and other strategies of institutional and social change. And we’ve been reminded that work with men and boys should transform patriarchal and unjust gender roles and relations, address the intersecting forms of privilege and disadvantage that structure men’s and boys’ lives, and build on the strengths already visible among them.
Taken together, these presentations have shown us that understanding the manosphere requires attention not only to online content, but also to relationships, institutions, cultures and systems. They have demonstrated the value of bringing together researchers, practitioners, policymakers and technology experts to deepen our understanding and strengthen our collective response. They have also reminded us that this is a rapidly evolving field, one that calls for continued research, collaboration and thoughtful action.