First time reader here! Very much enjoyed this topic. As a gay man, I grapple with ideas of masculinity every day (if not every hour of every day). It is a topic that gets quite heated in the LGBTQ+ community...
Hi my friend! Oof — I can imagine how contentious this subject can be. But that’s exactly why it’s so important to discuss, right? So many people are affected by the way we orient ourselves towards (or against) it…
Thanks for reading 🥹 definitely want to hear more of your thoughts!
I love most of the podcasters you mention and enjoy their shows. I also find it weird that on most of their episodes,, women simply do not exist—as guests, as writers to mention, etc.
Im not complaining about it, just saying I find it intersting/peculiar as a phenomenon, as these hosts are all pretty sophisticated guys who are living in a real world where they meet all kinds of people. What do you think is going on with that?
Honestly, I’m not confident enough to say that I know for certain. I suspect it’s a mixture of many things— audience capture, convenience, the unconscious favor that some spaces still have towards men, etc.. it’s like finding out that only 3% of all venture capital money goes to women founders. There’s no good explanation! My instinct is also that this world is much smaller than I realize and there aren’t as many players that bring in attention and money as it seems on the outside. I’d be curious if you had any theories.
Oh, and I also like some of the guys in the newsletter, although I don’t know them. I hope I was not too ungenerous in my tone 🫣 Thanks for reading and commenting. It REALLY made my day!
I'm also aware of the 3% stat when it comes to venture capital. Another field of endeavor that is similarly skewed—classical music composers. Weird!
I don't have any good guesses or theories, either, though I imagine it's what you proposed—a mixture of many things.
Still, the skew is so extreme it does sort of boggle the mind. If these podcasts were purposefully aimed at being for men (the podcasting equivalent of Esquire or GQ, for example) it would be easy to understand. But they purport to be for a general audience.
Anyway I've asked a number of other fellows about this and no one seems to have a satisfying answer, so I guess I'll just have to enjoy the mystery.
Also, fwiw, it was very clear that you like some of the guys you mentioned.
Hi Bradley. I just learned about the manosphere yesterday, I didn’t know anything about it so I did a Google search and your article came up, which is apropos since Substack is my social media platform of choice.
Thank you for this article, it’s extremely helpful and I can tell so much research was put into it. I will say that I’m so sad to hear that Andrew Huberman was on the list but now that you mentioned it, his guests, topics, focus is primarily on men. As a woman, I don’t know how I didn’t notice this before. 😅😳
I’m going to spend more time researching my consumption before consuming. This is such an important topic. Thank you for writing about it!
Thank you so much for reading and taking time to comment. It's really encouraging for me, so I'm truly grateful.
I feel like I have seen a tiny bump in interest about the manosphere in the last few days. I can only assume its because the Tate brothers are back in the US? I am not sure. I'm glad that my post gave you something to think about though -- I truly hope that my notes were not too ungenerous and aren't discouraging people from getting good information that they find personally useful from a guy like Huberman! I am just doing my best to point out some nuances I think I have a vantage to.
Again, thanks so much for the feedback. It means a ton! Would love to know more of your thoughts on future posts as well 😀
I don't know anything about the Tate brothers being back in the US, I live in Portugal (though I'm a US citizen) and can't keep up on all the news when there's so much all the time 😳
I was looking up the manosphere only because a friend of mine mentioned it to me.
I enjoyed this a lot, and learnt from it, especially the comment on 'scripts'. For many years I've felt uncomfortable (as a Brit) with what I felt American adherence to scripts and semi-conscious performance of them. Which is not to say that the rest of us, including many Brits, could not do with more of the self-reflection which accompanies scripting.
A few years ago I wrote a book called The Paula Principle, which argued that women's competences and qualifications are under-recognised and under-rewarded. This is still very much the case (as the female-male competence gap continues to increase), and needs action; but I also accept Reeves' general argument on the need for new thinking and action on male roles and models. This article helped me think a bit more about it - thanks.
Thanks Bradley, and yes, the Paula Principle is the inverse of the Peter. Peter is 'every employee rises to his [sic] level of incompetence'; Paula is 'Most women work below their level of competence'. See
The manosphere exists to blame male problems on anything other than allowing society to normalize pornography. A real patriarchy would’ve shut that shit down a long time ago.
First time reader here! Very much enjoyed this topic. As a gay man, I grapple with ideas of masculinity every day (if not every hour of every day). It is a topic that gets quite heated in the LGBTQ+ community...
Hi my friend! Oof — I can imagine how contentious this subject can be. But that’s exactly why it’s so important to discuss, right? So many people are affected by the way we orient ourselves towards (or against) it…
Thanks for reading 🥹 definitely want to hear more of your thoughts!
I love most of the podcasters you mention and enjoy their shows. I also find it weird that on most of their episodes,, women simply do not exist—as guests, as writers to mention, etc.
Im not complaining about it, just saying I find it intersting/peculiar as a phenomenon, as these hosts are all pretty sophisticated guys who are living in a real world where they meet all kinds of people. What do you think is going on with that?
Hi Anne!! 👋
Honestly, I’m not confident enough to say that I know for certain. I suspect it’s a mixture of many things— audience capture, convenience, the unconscious favor that some spaces still have towards men, etc.. it’s like finding out that only 3% of all venture capital money goes to women founders. There’s no good explanation! My instinct is also that this world is much smaller than I realize and there aren’t as many players that bring in attention and money as it seems on the outside. I’d be curious if you had any theories.
Oh, and I also like some of the guys in the newsletter, although I don’t know them. I hope I was not too ungenerous in my tone 🫣 Thanks for reading and commenting. It REALLY made my day!
Thanks for your thoughts on this Bradley!
I'm also aware of the 3% stat when it comes to venture capital. Another field of endeavor that is similarly skewed—classical music composers. Weird!
I don't have any good guesses or theories, either, though I imagine it's what you proposed—a mixture of many things.
Still, the skew is so extreme it does sort of boggle the mind. If these podcasts were purposefully aimed at being for men (the podcasting equivalent of Esquire or GQ, for example) it would be easy to understand. But they purport to be for a general audience.
Anyway I've asked a number of other fellows about this and no one seems to have a satisfying answer, so I guess I'll just have to enjoy the mystery.
Also, fwiw, it was very clear that you like some of the guys you mentioned.
Thank YOU, Anne. The real question is… when is the Cafe Anne podcast coming? ☺️
PS enjoyed your thoughtful essay!
Hi Bradley. I just learned about the manosphere yesterday, I didn’t know anything about it so I did a Google search and your article came up, which is apropos since Substack is my social media platform of choice.
Thank you for this article, it’s extremely helpful and I can tell so much research was put into it. I will say that I’m so sad to hear that Andrew Huberman was on the list but now that you mentioned it, his guests, topics, focus is primarily on men. As a woman, I don’t know how I didn’t notice this before. 😅😳
I’m going to spend more time researching my consumption before consuming. This is such an important topic. Thank you for writing about it!
Hi Kimberly!
Thank you so much for reading and taking time to comment. It's really encouraging for me, so I'm truly grateful.
I feel like I have seen a tiny bump in interest about the manosphere in the last few days. I can only assume its because the Tate brothers are back in the US? I am not sure. I'm glad that my post gave you something to think about though -- I truly hope that my notes were not too ungenerous and aren't discouraging people from getting good information that they find personally useful from a guy like Huberman! I am just doing my best to point out some nuances I think I have a vantage to.
Again, thanks so much for the feedback. It means a ton! Would love to know more of your thoughts on future posts as well 😀
Hi Bradley, thank you for your response!
I don't know anything about the Tate brothers being back in the US, I live in Portugal (though I'm a US citizen) and can't keep up on all the news when there's so much all the time 😳
I was looking up the manosphere only because a friend of mine mentioned it to me.
Sadly she also sent me a negative link to Andrew Huberman that has me canceling him ☹️ https://www.yahoo.com/news/neuroscientist-andrew-huberman-accused-bizarre-213037178.html
I'm glad you're speaking out!!
I will let you know of future thoughts!!
I enjoyed this a lot, and learnt from it, especially the comment on 'scripts'. For many years I've felt uncomfortable (as a Brit) with what I felt American adherence to scripts and semi-conscious performance of them. Which is not to say that the rest of us, including many Brits, could not do with more of the self-reflection which accompanies scripting.
A few years ago I wrote a book called The Paula Principle, which argued that women's competences and qualifications are under-recognised and under-rewarded. This is still very much the case (as the female-male competence gap continues to increase), and needs action; but I also accept Reeves' general argument on the need for new thinking and action on male roles and models. This article helped me think a bit more about it - thanks.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the kind note. I like your term, the Paula principle. I assume it’s a twist on the classic Peter principle? Very clever.
This is definitely a nuanced topic and requires a lot of thought. Glad people like you are doing the work!
Thanks Bradley, and yes, the Paula Principle is the inverse of the Peter. Peter is 'every employee rises to his [sic] level of incompetence'; Paula is 'Most women work below their level of competence'. See
https://www.mindtools.com/a2wm6kw/the-paula-principle.
Thank you for the rec! I will 100% check this out.
The manosphere exists to blame male problems on anything other than allowing society to normalize pornography. A real patriarchy would’ve shut that shit down a long time ago.