Inside the Manosphere highlights a misogynistic subculture of men, but not the harms they cause

It’s the documentary that has been widely spoken about since its release, which investigates a growing cohort of ultra masculine men with controversial views and their influence on a community of impressionable younger men.

Netflix’s Inside the Manosphere, presented by renowned documentary maker Louis Theroux, enters the world of several prominent male influencers including Harrison Sullivan (aka HS TikkyTokky), Myron Gaines, Nicolas Kenn De Balinthazy (aka Sneako), Justin Waller and Ed Matthews, all of whom pedal an extreme anti-women, racist, homophobic and antisemitic ideology.

Their idea of masculinity is rooted in the patriarchal construct that men are providers and women are homemakers. Many of them believe that women should obey their husbands, “stay in the kitchen”, and be virgins before getting married.

These men subscribe to the “red pill” belief system – a concept taken from the film The Matrix, referring to how they help their followers see through the mainstream media’s supposed lies to the truth about society and how it is intent on keeping men suppressed. 

Most of these men claimed to have built the influencer or entrepreneur pathway to build a life for themselves that was escaping what they referred to as the “matrix” – the capitalist system that was keeping them chained to a rigid routine of working for someone else for very little gain, never allowing them to achieve “true success”. 

Instead, they have entered a world where they promise their followers a “cheat code” to obtain success in life through extreme self-improvement including get-rich-quick schemes and muscle-focused gym content.

And yet, the very systems that these men have built – trading groups where they take large cuts and paid subscriber-based programs – are only serving those at the top of the chain. Meanwhile their fans, collectively in the millions, sit beneath them, parting ways with money that demonstrates no evidence of improving their lives, financially or otherwise. As Theroux said in the documentary: “The ‘matrix’ they rail against more accurately describes the algorithmic prison they’ve created for their followers; an illusion of endless wealth and power that actually only enriches a few at the top”.

A lack of scrutiny around real-world misogyny

A recurring theme throughout the documentary is the outright misogynistic views these men hold. They claim to “love women” but it’s evident that they completely lack respect for women. In one part of the documentary, Harrison says: “I dictate when I wanna put my dick in you, bitch … Women love guys like this, that tell it like it is.” Many of the men also claimed that they liked having women around to cook and clean for them and that they were “beautiful”, suggesting that a woman’s only value was to be of service and aesthetic pleasure. 

There was also was a distinct double standard for these men wanting one-way monogamy that naturally only benefited them; their female partners were not allowed to date or sleep with other men but these “alpha” men positioned the argument that they had the entitlement to date and sleep with as many women as they wanted to, while retaining their long-term relationship. Put plainly: the men can behave as badly as they please, without consequence. 

Watching the documentary from a feminist lens, I thought it lacked perspectives from women to give it balance. I wanted to see a point of view from a woman that had been exploited or treated unfairly by one of these ultra masculine men and how that had negatively impacted their life, but no such case studies were presented. And that’s where I think the documentary missed the mark. In an effort to expose these men for their anti-women ideologies, it failed to represent the perspectives of the recipients of the harrowing actions of these men.

The documentary becomes most fascinating when Theroux speaks to the women connected to these men’s lives, including Gaine’s girlfriend, Angie, and Waller’s long-term partner, Kristen. While Angie understands the arrangement, she seems less impressed with the idea that her partner Gaines wants multiple wives. Kristen is given more screen time, but her other half is always present, as if he’s ready to interject if she says anything he disagrees with. Her perspective obviously comes across as biased, given she has a vested interest in perpetuating the luxurious lifestyle that Waller is providing for her. She claims that she “feels so good in her femininity” thanks to “how masculine Justin is”. Subscribing to traditional gender roles where Waller focuses on finances and business while Kristen runs the home and raises the children, she says “sticking to our lanes works for us”. 

Reflecting on the lack of women’s voices in the documentary, the analysis of this subculture of men fails to reflect the very people the manosphere is oppressing. Some of the most interesting parts of the 90-minute show are the moments where the men are seen interacting with their mothers, girlfriends and other women in their lives. Incorporating even one segment of advice or counter-narrative to the overwhelming tirade of misogyny would have offered the viewer more depth and perhaps some helpful insight but, to my disappointment, this was non-existent. I understand that the purpose of the documentary was to highlight the manosphere, but it should’ve also investigated how this misogyny plays out in the real world.

Trauma explained, impact ignored

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of the men featured in the documentary seemed to have come from troubled families, lacking a father figure, or traumatic backgrounds. It was blatantly obvious that they have taken this trauma and, instead of working on it to become a better human being, they have used it as fuel to create a lifestyle in which they take advantage of their cult-like following, many of which are vulnerable, younger men. 

An excellent example were the two Miami-based fans of Waller, who seemed to be indoctrinated by the principles of the manosphere. They spouted the same misogynistic and pro-patriarchal views promoted by figures in the manosphere, and even held their hands in the so-called “matrix” triangle sign, favoured by contentious male figure Andrew Tate.

Previously homeless, they both quit their jobs and moved to Miami in pursuit of a better life – the kind of life they see played out online by influencers like Waller. Yet, all we saw the pair doing was talking about wanting this lifestyle, working out in the gym, and running along the beach. There was little evidence that the tactics they’ve employed to improve their lives, directed by the manosphere influencers they look up to, was actually working. 

It’s not enough for a documentary to offer a harrowing deep-dive into the inner world of these alt-right males and suggest that their views are rooted in trauma, whether from childhood or lack of stable male role models. There also needs to be an explanation as to why it resonates so much with young men in modern society, and why they believe that feminism has done more harm than good.

Observation without interrogation

Perhaps one of the questions I am wrangling with after watching the documentary is: Am I better off with the knowledge that this subculture of men exists or are they best ignored? The job of the media should be to provide accountability and context, but Theroux’s nuanced interviewing style simply allowed these men to reveal themselves and nothing more. There was no solution offered, and no actionable advice for those seeking to combat the toxicity that these men employ to navigate life. 

The documentary didn’t seek to interrogate the root cause of this epidemic – it simply pointed out that these men’s emotions and thoughts are wrong but it didn’t attempt to understand them. As a journalist watching this documentary through a very critical lens, I wanted to see Theroux ask much harder questions of his subjects and to offer a more balanced perspective. That may not be his style, but he owed this to his audience. 

By the end, the documentary leaves us with visibility, but very little clarity. And in a space as complex and consequential as this, that’s not enough. If the goal is to shed light on a growing cultural force, then that light needs to be sharper, more probing, and far less comfortable. Otherwise, it risks highlighting the problem without ever challenging it.