The Manosphere Isn't About Men. Or Women

[Basman]

24 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

LMFAO before the Industrial Revolution, there were Medieval Ages and the Roman Empire (arguably the most patriarchal society ever). I understand that you wokies don't really care about history and twist it the way that suits yall so I don't care to argue, but I'm just finding this part of your post funny LOOOL Literaly couldn't be more wrong. And the irony about this whole thing, is that it was most likely Industrial Revolution that actually allowed actualization of all these wokie worldviews. Much moreso than some increase of empathy and psychological development (although that is also important). In reality, your empathy is only as good as your survival options

I think why greenies feel drawn to feudalistic systems is because feudal values reflect some of their own values, like centering and (wanting to) institutionalizing morality and valuing art and community over industry. Just spitballing. 

[Basman]

Chuds and femchuds are just human ego voices that choose to be negative and ideological due to fear and insecurity. You will never convince them because their goal is to essentially troll you, unintentional or not. You see it in the way they write and respond to things. The sneering tone of it all. They take pleasure in making you feel negative. 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

@Elliott Schrödinger feminist: A society can be patriarchal or not patriarchal, depending on how I feel like or how it suits my agenda

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

39 minutes ago, Basman said:

I think why greenies feel drawn to feudalistic systems is because feudal values reflect some of their own values, like centering and (wanting to) institutionalizing morality and valuing art and community over industry. Just spitballing. 

Yeah I think you might be cooking with this one. But I also genuinely think that some of them might be legit mentally deficient. Cause you can't live in this era with all that information at your fingertips and be this retarded. Idk

[Elliott]

4 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

@Elliott Schrödinger feminist: A society can be patriarchal or not patriarchal, depending on how I feel like or how it suits my agenda

This is what you're responding to 

"Before the Industrial Revolution, men worked in guilds, tribes, and communal groups. They had deep emotional bonds with other men"

Post industrial revolution, everyone became an individual part of the non localized machine. Pre industrial revolution was more local, more communal.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 13/04/2026 at 7:48 AM, Leo Gura said:

Immature men create immature dating advice for immature men to attract immature women. Immature women fall for it, so it works. When the women are so immature, you can't attract them with maturity or wisdom.

Watching this videos with this frame in mind 

The grifft goes both ways. Men needing something from women and women needing something from man. 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

32 minutes ago, Elliott said:

This is what you're responding to 

"Before the Industrial Revolution, men worked in guilds, tribes, and communal groups. They had deep emotional bonds with other men"

Post industrial revolution, everyone became an individual part of the non localized machine. Pre industrial revolution was more local, more communal.

Yes, and it was also more patriarchal. Which defeats her whole argument. And your only counterargument was basically "women were involved in society too" and "there were some women in the positions of power". 

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Yes, and it was also more patriarchal. Which defeats her whole argument. And your only counterargument was basically "women were involved in society too" and "there were some women in the positions of power". 

It was more patriarchal when women were tribal leaders, when women owned property,.....?

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

Huge side eye

I am concerned that you are too obsessive with me and my posts, and apparently they don’t make you feel very well.

This is too unhealthy for you dude.

I kindly and wholeheartedly suggest that as a recovery you put me on your ignore list for your benefit. I know it’s difficult for you but please try.

You can't bully me with social status games on this forum. That would maybe work if you also weren't an autistic forum dweller like the rest of us here

[Joseph Maynor]

@Emerald Yes, there is a conflation with gender and the Masc and Fem.  This causes a lot of confusion with a lot of people who haven't been educated on this.

[Elliott]

Woke

 

 

'The Patriarchy' does not mean a man is in charge. If you look back pre industrial revolution, mothers were the teachers of most 'soft skills' to children, many men in a lot of societies regularly even went off away from home most of the time leaving women completely in charge of the household, this obviously gave the women much influence over their local culture. If you look at today, mothers are not as involved and you see schools focusing on teaching people to solely be workers, and far less about 'soft skills' arts, or relations. Ending the patriarchy would mean things like prioritizing healthcare and education over war, ending the idea that everything is dependent on the man in the relationship, that material accumulation is all that matters.

 

You can see a clear change in these priorities at the industrial revolution.

[Lila9]

1 hour ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

You can't bully me with social status games on this forum. That would maybe work if you also weren't an autistic forum dweller like the rest of us here

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you bother me? Please leave me alone and don’t diagnose me.

[Basman]

2 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

But I also genuinely think that some of them might be legit mentally deficient. Cause you can't live in this era with all that information at your fingertips and be this retarded. Idk

It's magical thinking simply. They don't have a truth oriented relation to politics and ideology. One of the downsides of modern society is that it insulates people from reality to a certain degree.

[Lila9]

A good read about when incel and red pill content is covertly promoted by influencers who appear to be "conscious", "balanced" and “objective":

https://substack.com/inbox/post/186623062

The Diary Of A(n Undercover Incel) CEO

You know how we’re always wary of those podcasts or speakers that are unambiguously misogynistic? Like A**rew T*te, the guys on Whatever Podcast, Fresh and Fit. The ones that are blatantly, loudly and proudly hateful. I don’t know about you but I would NEVER have a friendship or even an acquaintanceship if I can help it with anyone who listens to and follows those guys. They’re violently disrespectful and they don’t hide their disdain for women’s autonomy and ways of thinking. I wouldn’t even deign to pay attention to someone who says ‘but they make great points sometimes.’ What great points? Please run away from them.

But what happens when there’s one that is hiding in plain sight?

Enter Diary of A CEO, hosted by Steven Bartlett. It launched in 2017 and on paper, the podcast looks harmless. It features conversations with “successful people” about hardship, growth and resilience. Sounds reasonable, and the type of thing a TikTok page called Goated Quotes would post multiple clips of (I kid you not there is a page named exactly that and they post clips of the podcast constantly).

But underneath the motivational and seemingly profound front is a recurring logic pattern that isn’t just about self-improvement. It subtly reflects ideas about gender, purpose and societal structures that align with right-wing, reactionary and red-pill narratives, packaged as “brutal truths” for men.

It’s also known for misinformation, especially on health. If you’d like to know more you can read here, but my main focus is on why it’s been called a ‘Trojan Horse for the manosphere’ and why that description is terrifyingly accurate.

What makes Diary of a CEO dangerous isn’t that it’s openly hateful. It’s that it isn’t.

The men who listen to Andrew Tate know exactly what they’re signing up for. The misogyny is loud, aggressive and obvious. You can spot it from a mile away and decide, very quickly, that you want no parts. Not this guy.

Steven Bartlett speaks softly and uses language and tone that sounds like self-reflection, vulnerability, growth. His guests talk about genuine self-improvement in a way that sounds profound or even compassionate. That’s exactly how it sneaks in incel and bioessentialist propaganda without you knowing.

For example, the recurring fixation on “men’s loss of purpose” or the perceived “mating crisis.”

I watched some podcast episodes so you don’t have to and I will never do it again but here’s the gist: Steven had Dr. Alok Kanojia, or Dr. K as he’s mostly known, on his show in July last year.

In that episode, the conversation starts with statistics that sound neutral and alarming in equal measure: rising sexual inactivity among young men, men accounting for nearly 80% of suicides, increasing reports of hopelessness and lack of purpose. All of these are real, verifiable issues. That’s part of what makes what comes next so sinister.

Dr. K frames the situation as something close to an evolutionary crisis. Young men, he suggests, are being left behind by modern dating dynamics, economic shifts and social changes. Women, he notes, no longer need men in the way they once did; they can earn their own money, choose not to marry and even have children without male partners. This, according to him, creates what he repeatedly describes as an “extinction event”: a cohort of men who will never find partners, never reproduce and effectively “die out” of the gene pool.

He ends up floating the idea that society should intervene to make sure men can pass on their genes, as if sexual access is a public utility like water or electricity. And, get this, he compares a man’s inability to find a partner to cancer, a deadly virus and genocide.

I know damn well-

Now, to his credit, Dr. K is careful to say that no one is entitled to sex, relationships, or reproduction. He acknowledges consent. He explicitly rejects coercion. But by casting male loneliness in evolutionary and biological terms like natural selection, genetic dead ends, extinction, it turns social alienation into destiny. He’s essentially suggesting that resentment and aggression towards women are not choices, but inevitable responses to being biologically sidelined.

This mirrors almost exactly how incel and black-pill communities already talk about themselves, and the podcast instantly becomes a recruitment tool for the most radicalized corners of the incel movement. By suggesting that society has a responsibility to “course-correct” the fact that some men aren’t chosen as partners, Dr. K validates the dangerous idea that men are biologically owed the bodies of women.

The same logic appears in Steven’s conversation with clinical social worker Erica Komisar. When asked about the “plight of young men” and rising suicide rates among them, Komisar argues that men have lost their purpose because society has dismantled their traditional roles as providers and protectors.

Yes, she actually said that. I was baffled too.

According to her, while “raising women up” had positive outcomes, it also involved “denigrating men.” She goes further, describing modern feminism as having taken on something “vengeful,” no longer about balance but about diminishing men, pushing them out and taking over.

What’s next is she points to the fact that women now make up over 60% of university students and graduate school attendees, and cites studies suggesting that men tend to marry across or down educationally, while women marry across or up. The conclusion of all she’s saying is that women’s educational and professional advancement has effectively stripped men of their purpose, leaving them discouraged, diminished, and lost.

What’s so funny here is not that she’s concerned for men, but the assumption beneath it: that men’s purpose is fundamentally external and relies on women’s dependence. When women no longer need men to survive economically or socially, men are said to lose meaning. That is not a feminist argument, it is a deeply patriarchal one that has been quietly repackaged as sympathy for men. Instead of encouraging men to find new, more empathetic ways of being, the podcast encourages them to look back at a patriarchal past with a sense of stolen entitlement.

This pattern becomes even clearer in Steven’s interviews with former Love Islander Chris Williamson, and the language moves from therapy speak to market logic. Dating here is called a “mating market” so now, we’re talking about relationships in a transactional manner. Sounds awfully familiar…

Chris describes women as hypergamous, inclined to date “up” in education, income and status. According to him, as women achieve parity or outpace men in education and early-career earnings, the pool of “eligible” men shrinks. The result is a large group of men rendered invisible, while a small group of “high-value” men accumulate options and avoid commitment. He called this the “tall girl problem.”

Hmm. You mean the tall poppy syndrome?

Here again, women’s independence is treated as the destabilising variable. By focusing on reliable contraception and socioeconomic autonomy as the “disruptors” of dating, he is essentially saying that women were easier to deal with when they had fewer choices.

Structural issues like economic instability, job insecurity, housing crises, the collapse of community spaces suddenly fade into the background. The problem becomes women’s standards, women’s choices and women’s fear. Over and over again.

Even MeToo is folded into this logic (of course it is). Chris acknowledged it as necessary to hold powerful men accountable for their crimes and misconduct against women, then he makes a hard right and describes it as having gone “too far,” leaving men afraid to approach women and women afraid of men, which therefore produces an epidemic of loneliness and sexlessness.

He flattens fear of violence and fear of being accused into moral equivalents, so the asymmetry of power disappears. What’s left is the suggestion that women’s safety and boundaries have produced unintended “externalities” for men.

Taken individually, any one of these conversations might sound like a clumsy but well-meaning attempt to understand modern relationships. Taken together, they form a consistent worldview: men are suffering because women have too much autonomy; equality has created imbalance; and social progress has left a generation of men behind.

The problem is not that Diary Of A CEO talks about men’s pain. Ultimately, it functions as a bridge. It meets young men where they are; looking for health tips, business advice, or a sense of direction, and then slowly leads them toward a worldview where women’s autonomy is the root of their misery.

Over and over again, the podcast returns to the same conclusions: men are purposeless because women no longer need them; men are invisible because women “date up”; men are angry because feminism went too far; men are lonely because women are afraid; men are being selected out of the gene pool because society has changed too fast. The villain is never collapsing social infrastructure, or the monetisation of dating, or the hollowing out of community, or an economic system that strips people of dignity and stability. It is, consistently, women’s autonomy. That is red-pill rhetoric.

What’s missing from these conversations is the reality of femicide. The fact that men’s feelings of entitlement to access do not exist in a vacuum is rarely ever discussed. Women exist in a world where we are killed, stalked, assaulted and harassed by men who believe they have been wronged.

What makes this especially dangerous is the tone. Steven Bartlett is not shouting or calling anyone a h*e or B-word. He is nodding and empathising. He is letting his guests spin narratives about extinction events, hypergamy and vengeful feminism with minimal pushback. While he has released a statement saying he doesn’t necessarily hold the same views as his guests, I call bullshit. He platforms these people, give hums of approval when they speak and eggs them on. He only released said statement because it was becoming obvious what was happening.

So no, Diary of a CEO is not harmless self-help. It is not neutral, and it is certainly not just “motivational content.” It’s time we stop treating Steven Bartlett as a harmless motivational figure and start seeing him for what he is: the manosphere’s most effective public relations officer. That podcast is a pipeline that feeds young men a story where the social progress of women is the reason for their pain.

[Elliott]

Like society would not function without baseless wars, sports cars, and child rape rings. Trogolodytes.