I have issues with terms like "manosphere," "toxic masculinity" or even "mansplaining" because these terms are often used in a way to discount discussions that are necessary, essentially by prejudgement. This statement in the piece is an example of prejudgement that can stifle needed conversations, particularly with young men, in order to protect another unstated agenda:
"Over two-thirds of adolescent boys (69%) regularly see masculinity content that promotes problematic gender stereotypes. This includes messages that girls only want to date certain types of guys (28%), that girls use their looks to get what they want (25%), that boys are treated unfairly compared to girls (12%), or that girls should focus on home and family (12%)."
When boys experience things like "girls only want to date certain types of guys" – well that's partly true SOME girls have a preference for certain types of guys, and all girls have some preferences at some level (just as boys do) – how are boys able to navigate their own sense of self in a world where there are qualities that are valued, or devalued by potential dating prospects, if the very topic is considered "problematic." Some women do on occasion use their gender to advantage (just as men do) – one can't have a nuanced discussion of privilege (and in some areas, such as detention, girls do have an advantage) if the very discussion is seen as problematic to begin with. In some areas boys are treated unfairly when compared to girls, but I would use the term systematically disadvantaged instead treated unfairly – are we not to have this discussion either? And the question 12% being exposed to the idea of girls needing to focus on home and family is an ongoing societal discussion (one that I don't agree with and would equally like to see more discussion of how boys integrate to focus on home and family as adults) – but saying the topic itself is problematic, without allowing for the conversations, is a lot like saying we can't talk about policy in Israel because it is antisemitic to do so.
None of these topics, in and of themselves, necessarily indicate "problematic gender stereotypes" it is the context that makes them damaging, or not. I would not be surprised that many boys have real life experiences of when a boy was treated unfairly compared to a girl (just as girls have had the opposite experience). Are we to say that these topics are blankety forbidden for discussion? These topics are not wrong, but the context of the conversations on line are. The solution is not to say to boys, "if you talk about these topics you are exhibiting "problematic gender stereotypes."" Boys already feel marginalized and are checking out... hence the gravity to online platforms where they feel more supported. Terms like "problematic gender stereotypes," "manosphere," "toxic masculinity" or even "mansplaining" are terms that only push boys (and men) farther away. We can't have respectful conversations with boys and men on the problems the feel deeply about, but have trouble articulating, if we ourselves can't model that respect first and provide a language that recognizes their experiences as as being real and important to us, not something to just call a name and dismiss.
Thank you for the encouragement to dig deeper. I do have a problem with trigger words that can both summarize a societal issue and discount and marginalize the issue in one breath. But I'm sure there was more depth behind it. Thanks for the link I'll look into it, Thanks again.
I still thing that "manosphere," "toxic masculinity," " mansplaining" and even "problematic gender stereotypes" are terms are often used in a way to discount discussions that are necessary by prejudging the discussion before it is had. I think these terms lead to the polarity that makes nuance and insight into these problems impossible. Any expedience that is gained by an attempt to sum up a problem succinctly in few words, is immediately overwhelmed by the judgement ladened connotations that are inescapable. These make good headlines for catching the reader's attention if your publication is looking for readership engagement. But really lousy if the goal is to understand a problem more honestly with the intention of understanding what is going on. When I see these words I am immediately suspicious of the ideology that is being pushed, and question the objectivity and neutrality of the writer.
Finally read some of the report. Of particular interest to me was the "masculinity" and "femininity" indexes, where the researchers themselves chose to label behaviors as masculine or feminine. Placing negative values like fighting in the masculine and positive values like caring in the feminine. I would trust data more if it did not contain the researchers own ideologic constructs of gender and merely reported on the questions and the implications of the data. The list of "problematic gender stereotypes" is a list of things that may or may not be true from the perspective of lived experience of these boys. Calling it "problematic" silences any discussion over where these boys experience things that aren't fair, or that some girls are looking for certain attributes in a potential male partner. Calling these observations "problematic" points to researcher bias, and again compromises what could have been useful information. The last thing I notice is that a great deal of emphasis is placed on masculinity content as being causal (without directly saying it). But the data only points to association. It could just as easily be that failures in home, school, and societal support for boys is causing them to seek out content that feels like it addresses their isolation.
Don't get me wrong, this research is essential, and useful. But it could be much better if there was less bias, specifically gendered stereotype bias, that remains unexamined for the researchers themselves. I'm hoping that someday "gender studies" will strive for a neutral starting point, but the current ideology limits the kinds of questions asked, and absolutely limits the contextual framing of the data. Generally a disappointment, but not unexpected.
Great piece- and thank you for the shoutout for Boymom…
I have issues with terms like "manosphere," "toxic masculinity" or even "mansplaining" because these terms are often used in a way to discount discussions that are necessary, essentially by prejudgement. This statement in the piece is an example of prejudgement that can stifle needed conversations, particularly with young men, in order to protect another unstated agenda:
"Over two-thirds of adolescent boys (69%) regularly see masculinity content that promotes problematic gender stereotypes. This includes messages that girls only want to date certain types of guys (28%), that girls use their looks to get what they want (25%), that boys are treated unfairly compared to girls (12%), or that girls should focus on home and family (12%)."
When boys experience things like "girls only want to date certain types of guys" – well that's partly true SOME girls have a preference for certain types of guys, and all girls have some preferences at some level (just as boys do) – how are boys able to navigate their own sense of self in a world where there are qualities that are valued, or devalued by potential dating prospects, if the very topic is considered "problematic." Some women do on occasion use their gender to advantage (just as men do) – one can't have a nuanced discussion of privilege (and in some areas, such as detention, girls do have an advantage) if the very discussion is seen as problematic to begin with. In some areas boys are treated unfairly when compared to girls, but I would use the term systematically disadvantaged instead treated unfairly – are we not to have this discussion either? And the question 12% being exposed to the idea of girls needing to focus on home and family is an ongoing societal discussion (one that I don't agree with and would equally like to see more discussion of how boys integrate to focus on home and family as adults) – but saying the topic itself is problematic, without allowing for the conversations, is a lot like saying we can't talk about policy in Israel because it is antisemitic to do so.
None of these topics, in and of themselves, necessarily indicate "problematic gender stereotypes" it is the context that makes them damaging, or not. I would not be surprised that many boys have real life experiences of when a boy was treated unfairly compared to a girl (just as girls have had the opposite experience). Are we to say that these topics are blankety forbidden for discussion? These topics are not wrong, but the context of the conversations on line are. The solution is not to say to boys, "if you talk about these topics you are exhibiting "problematic gender stereotypes."" Boys already feel marginalized and are checking out... hence the gravity to online platforms where they feel more supported. Terms like "problematic gender stereotypes," "manosphere," "toxic masculinity" or even "mansplaining" are terms that only push boys (and men) farther away. We can't have respectful conversations with boys and men on the problems the feel deeply about, but have trouble articulating, if we ourselves can't model that respect first and provide a language that recognizes their experiences as as being real and important to us, not something to just call a name and dismiss.
You may be interested to dig into the actual study and the questions asked - this top-line summary doesn’t capture all the nuance that went into that research https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2025-boys-in-the-digital-wild-report_for-web.pdf
Thank you for the encouragement to dig deeper. I do have a problem with trigger words that can both summarize a societal issue and discount and marginalize the issue in one breath. But I'm sure there was more depth behind it. Thanks for the link I'll look into it, Thanks again.
I still thing that "manosphere," "toxic masculinity," " mansplaining" and even "problematic gender stereotypes" are terms are often used in a way to discount discussions that are necessary by prejudging the discussion before it is had. I think these terms lead to the polarity that makes nuance and insight into these problems impossible. Any expedience that is gained by an attempt to sum up a problem succinctly in few words, is immediately overwhelmed by the judgement ladened connotations that are inescapable. These make good headlines for catching the reader's attention if your publication is looking for readership engagement. But really lousy if the goal is to understand a problem more honestly with the intention of understanding what is going on. When I see these words I am immediately suspicious of the ideology that is being pushed, and question the objectivity and neutrality of the writer.
Finally read some of the report. Of particular interest to me was the "masculinity" and "femininity" indexes, where the researchers themselves chose to label behaviors as masculine or feminine. Placing negative values like fighting in the masculine and positive values like caring in the feminine. I would trust data more if it did not contain the researchers own ideologic constructs of gender and merely reported on the questions and the implications of the data. The list of "problematic gender stereotypes" is a list of things that may or may not be true from the perspective of lived experience of these boys. Calling it "problematic" silences any discussion over where these boys experience things that aren't fair, or that some girls are looking for certain attributes in a potential male partner. Calling these observations "problematic" points to researcher bias, and again compromises what could have been useful information. The last thing I notice is that a great deal of emphasis is placed on masculinity content as being causal (without directly saying it). But the data only points to association. It could just as easily be that failures in home, school, and societal support for boys is causing them to seek out content that feels like it addresses their isolation.
Don't get me wrong, this research is essential, and useful. But it could be much better if there was less bias, specifically gendered stereotype bias, that remains unexamined for the researchers themselves. I'm hoping that someday "gender studies" will strive for a neutral starting point, but the current ideology limits the kinds of questions asked, and absolutely limits the contextual framing of the data. Generally a disappointment, but not unexpected.