Online Manosphere Under Fire as Experts Warn of Growing Threat to Boys' Mental Health
A teenage boy struggling with loneliness, low self-esteem, or uncertainty about his future may find something seemingly reassuring in an online community promising to explain why life feels difficult. But experts warn that some of these spaces can turn those vulnerabilities into resentment, misogyny, and harmful ideas about masculinity.
The social media 'manosphere' is facing renewed scrutiny after researchers called for it to be treated as a public health problem, warning that its influence extends beyond online arguments and could affect the mental health of boys and young men.
In a report published in The Lancet, researchers argued that the manosphere has become a commercial ecosystem that profits from male insecurity and grievance. They compared the strategies used by content creators and digital platforms to those of the tobacco and ultra-processed food industries, which have faced scrutiny over the health consequences of their business practices.
The term describes a loose network of online communities united by beliefs about masculinity, misogyny and male victimisation. Some promote the idea that feminism has systematically disadvantaged men, presenting women and changing gender roles as explanations for men's personal and social difficulties.
How the Manosphere Can Affect Boys' Mental Health
The researchers warned that exposure to these communities can contribute to mental health problems among boys and young men, including body image concerns and reluctance to seek professional help. They also highlighted body image concerns and the tendency to discourage boys and men from seeking professional help.
The concern is not that boys are inherently drawn to misogyny, but that online communities can offer a sense of belonging to those who feel excluded, isolated or uncertain about their place in society.
Professor Sarah Hawkes, a co-author of the report and co-founder of the Global 50/50 social justice think tank, said the manosphere offers young men 'belonging, identity and an explanation for why life feels hard'.
'Those needs are real,' she added, warning that simply removing harmful content without providing credible alternatives would not solve the problem.
The researchers identified social exclusion, educational marginalisation and isolation as factors that can make boys and young men more susceptible to the appeal of these communities. They also pointed to economic insecurity and uncertain employment prospects as underlying conditions that can contribute to disengagement.
Professor Kent Buse, another co-author of the report, argued that platforms reward increasingly extreme content because outrage and grievance drive engagement and generate revenue.
'This is a business model,' he said.
He warned that companies could follow a strategy previously used by the tobacco industry:
'Expect the playbook that served tobacco so well: blame the individual, and call regulation an attack on freedom.
'Boys and men are not the problem. The problem is the conditions that leave them isolated and without a secure future, and the companies that profit from their anger and insecurity.'
Why Experts Want a Public Health Response
The report also highlighted consequences for women and girls, warning that normalising misogynistic attitudes can contribute to an environment in which violence against them is more readily accepted.
However, the authors cautioned against treating masculinity itself as harmful or portraying boys and men as the problem. They argued that doing so could alienate the very people interventions are intended to support.
Instead, they called for a coordinated response involving governments, schools, health services and community organisations. Proposed measures include improving access to mental health support, re-engaging boys in education, expanding employment and skills opportunities, and strengthening social connections.
The researchers also urged policymakers to address the commercial structures that encourage harmful content, including platform moderation and algorithms that amplify extreme material.
The comparison with tobacco is intended to highlight the role of commercial interests in creating and sustaining public health risks, rather than suggest that online content and smoking cause identical harms.