The Manosphere as a Networked Misogyny and Digital Subculture

The manosphere is a network of online communities that include incels, Men’s Rights Activists (mras), Pick-Up Artists (puas), and traditionalist conservatives, and promotes hegemonic masculinity through anti-feminist and gender-essentialist discourse (Ging, 2019; Marwick and Caplan, 2018; Menzie, 2022). While these groups vary in rhetoric and emphasis, they share a unifying goal: the reassertion of male dominance and the regulation of femininity. These online communities create networks that encourage the networked harassment of women, the policing of women’s behaviour in virtual spaces, and presents feminism as intrinsically threatening to men and the broader social order (Hopton & Langer, 2021; Bujalka et al., 2022). The manosphere perpetuates masculinism, or the belief that men are in crisis and suffering because of women and feminists, requiring solutions that involve curbing feminism’s influence and revalorizing masculinity (Marwick & Caplon, 2018; Botto and Gottzen, 2023). This framework repackages misogyny into language that appears rational, even benevolent, to justify the preservation of patriarchal control (Ging, 2019). There is a promise of stability (financial, emotional, relational) made to men by manosphere influencers that monetizes their struggles and insecurities (Bujalka et al., 2022) and places the blame for all social ills squarely on those in society not upholding idealized forms of gender hegemony (Czerwinsky, 2024b; Schippers, 2007). This reproduces culturally dominant masculinities that must be upheld through the constant demonization, sexualization, and control of femininity.

The manosphere as a digital subculture thus systematically reproduces narratives and discursive strategies that naturalize hegemonic masculinity as dominant and authoritative while consistently devaluing femininity as subordinate or threatening (Hopton & Langer, 2022; Hoskin, 2020; Marwick & Caplan, 2018; Vallerga & Zurbriggen, 2022). It accomplishes this naturalization first by establishing masculine dominance over women and other men as inherent and necessary (Czerwinsky, 2024a). First, this dominance narrative promotes a masculinity that emphasizes toughness, strength, power, and espouses a hierarchy that views women as supposedly less than (Hoskin, 2020; Hoskin, 2019) and in doing so, blames femininity for the feminization of men that it directs another layer of femmephobia towards. Second, the manosphere systematically devalues femininity through femmephobic discourse that positions feminine expression as inherently inferior and threatening, especially as pertains to the feminization of men (Franklin-Paddock et al., 2025). Third, these communities employ sophisticated digital strategies to amplify their messaging, with language mirroring red-pilled views permeating mainstream social media platforms through algorithmic amplification (Czerwinsky, 2024a; Hopton & Langer, 2022; Roberts et al., 2025).

Within this movement between online discourse and offline relationality, podcasts have emerged as a powerful medium for the dissemination of manosphere ideology. Their intimacy, long-form format, and parasocial potential make them powerful tools for spreading misogynistic and femmephobic messages (Llinares et al., 2018; Sullivan, 2019). As Dowling (2022) notes, podcasts foster a sense of direct connection between speaker and listener, enhancing the persuasive potential of ideological messaging. Tate and Fuentes use this medium to promote conservative gender roles, frame themselves as cultural truth-tellers, and deliver recurring narratives of female failure, threat, and deviance. In this way, they exist outside the typology of precursors to the current digital manosphere outlined by Ging, rather they combine the discourse of mras and puas from earlier decades, employing podcasting’s affordances to amalgamate past grievances in a widely circulatable format. These digital platform affordances, combined with the viral nature of short-form social media, enable manosphere rhetoric to spread rapidly and reshape public discourse (Theocharis et al., 2023; Bucher and Helmond, 2018). Özkula et al. (2024) highlight how misogynist memes, soundbites, and video clips are decontextualized and circulated across platforms, contributing to a broader networked misogyny that normalizes gendered violence and reinforces patriarchal values. We would argue as subsection of platformed misogyny outlined by Özkula et al. (2024) includes explicitly femmephobic content. Strathern and Pfeffer (2022) similarly argue that digital spaces reproduce offline power hierarchies by embedding traditional gender scripts in new communicative technologies.

What this produces is an idealized vision of hegemonic masculinity and femininity indexed via compulsory heteronormative gender dynamics that legitimate male dominance and feminine inferiority (Schippers, 2007, 90–91). In such hegemonic gender relations, dominance or agency of any kind is not available for those upholding the feminine end of the bargain and thus any “other configurations of feminine characteristics must be defined as deviant and stigmatized” (Schippers, 2007, pp. 94–95). These other configurations of the feminine are situated as pariah femininities that can threaten patriarchal social orders and thus must be expelled (Schippers, 2007, p. 95). This is “central to the very real, material sanctions exacted on women” and we would argue anyone, who embodies such undesirable femininities (Schippers, 2007, p. 96). Tate and Fuentes’ content operates as a form of gender regulation where public expressions of pariah femininities are ridiculed, policed, and presented as threats to patriarchal order. This aligns with Jane’s (2017) concept of digilantism, in which influencers mobilize their audiences to engage in coordinated harassment that enforces traditional gender roles through digital violence. Tate and Fuentes not only embody the ideals of hegemonic masculinity celebrated within the manosphere but also encourage their followers to discipline and punish femininity that deviates from their prescriptive norms. As a result, their influence produces both symbolic and material consequences that extend beyond digital discourse into real-world harm.

Framing Femininity: Manospheric Articulations of the Hegemonic vs. Pariah

Our close analysis of Fuentes and Tate’s podcasts reveals how each reinforces a hegemonic gender order that supports hegemonic femininity and vilifying its opposite, pariah femininity (Schippers, 2007). Rather than solely promoting masculine dominance, these manosphere podcasters relegate women to acceptable forms of femininity that defer to male power, emphasize sexual purity, and conform to a hyper-feminine aesthetic. They also direct violent and threatening language to those who do not uphold these norms. These distinctions function as gendered gatekeeping mechanisms whereby both Tate and Fuentes voice their expectations of women that create a sharp binary between a femininity that prioritizes sexual purity and their role as the family caregiver and those that enact more agency in their lifestyle choices, sexuality, and politics. For both podcasters the only acceptable women are those who remain within the traditional bounds of gender conservatism. The manosphere thus aggressively targets women who reject traditional gender roles and simultaneously promotes socially acceptable forms of femininity. This is particularly evident in the way it valorizes a soft femininity, which presents a seemingly empowering yet ultimately constrained version of gender roles. Unlike overt misogyny, soft feminine enforcement selectively embraces and rewards femininity that conforms to patriarchal limits (Schwartz, 2020).

This is seen quite clearly in the episode by Fuentes which reveals his feelings about the Barbie movie. This is worth considering in detail given Barbie’s role as an icon of soft femininity that nostalgically hails back to an imagined time of less complicated and more compliant forms of gender hegemony. Fuentes argues the movie is “weird” and “a sign of the times” (America First – Episode 1192, 00:57:14), offering feminist meta-commentary on society which, for Fuentes, stops Barbie from being “sincere” and “earnest” (America First – Episode 1192, 01:00:19).

View Full Size

Misogyny in America First: Episode 1192

Citation: Journal of Femininities 2026; 10.1163/29501229-bja10032

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

He argues the movie should instead be about femininity and family but is ruined because of its self-conscious feminist messaging. As a result, Fuentes dismisses, denigrates, and minimizes the film as a form of women’s culture not worthy of serious critical attention (despite spending an hours long episode doing precisely that). This contradicting rhetoric of deep investment followed by dismissal, is visualized in Figure 1, which shows sentences categorized as misogynistic (red) or non-misogynistic (blue) over the duration of Fuentes’ Barbie review. For a sustained 30-minute segment, Fuentes engages in a high concentration of emotionally charged, misogynistic commentary, largely marked by disgust and anger. The figure illustrates how his ideological critique of the film masks sustained affective labour aimed at disciplining femininity.

Fuentes takes issue with the movie overlooking the idealized femininity of Barbie instead framing women’s struggles and lived experiences, which he notes he is tired of hearing about in the media. Fuentes rants on contemporary women’s failings as childless, overweight, unemployed, unpleasant, crass, complain too much about sexism and are sexually unavailable, as opposed to his idealized vision of femininity upheld by Barbie. He notes we live in a “gynocratic society,” by which he means a society where women hold all the power, suggesting the opposite of this is preferable and ideal. He then outlines that for women to be deemed valuable in society the must be “skinny, have kids, pleasant, pure, demure, smart, contribute financially, have skills and job and money, and sexually available” (America First – Episode 1192, 00:50:12). This aligns quite closely with definitions of idealized hegemonic femininity that emerge from a capitalist, white supremacist, heteronormative, patriarchal logic (Hoskin et al., 2023; Menzie, 2022, Schippers, 2007).

Tate advocates for a similar idealized version of femininity in his discussion of women on his podcast. In a 2022 interview with Andrew Johnson, founder of 21 Studios and a self-described king of the manosphere, Tate articulates his discontent with Western women while idealizing Eastern European women who conform more closely to traditional gender expectations. As illustrated in Figure 2, this episode is marked by sustained and emotionally charged misogynistic discourse. The exchange offers insight into how the manosphere constructs failed versus desirable femininity:

Johnson: There is a thirst in America and the West for all kinds of femininity… These women act like men, and then it’s, like, you have nothing left except maybe some physical stuff online.

Tate: Thirst for femininity.

[…]

Tate: Because I’ve had guys literally say to my girls, you’re the first girl who speaks nicely…You’re the only girl who I’ve seen talk like this. You’re the only girl who does her nail. Like, the basic shit. They’re just like, wow, she’s a pedicure and a manicure, and she’s polite.

Johnson: Women in America are a wreck, man, compared to what I’m seeing here. They dress like shit. They act like men. They don’t have manners.

Tate: It’s unattractive.

andrew tate & 21 studios, 00:58:03 – 00:58:31

View Full Size

Misogyny in Tate Speech Interview with 21 Studios (Pt.2)

Citation: Journal of Femininities 2026; 10.1163/29501229-bja10032

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Here, femininity is reduced to aesthetics and subservience—having manicures, dressing well, and speaking nicely. These women are praised for their compliance and polish, both literal and behavioural. Tate’s reference to his girls alludes to his webcam business, which he claimed involved up to 75 women across multiple locations (bbc News, 2025). His approval of these women stems not from their autonomy, but from their conformity to a curated, commodified version of femininity that centers male pleasure and dominance. As with Fuentes, this reflects an idealized hegemonic femininity tied to soft feminine aesthetics—submissive femininity circumscribed by patriarchal norms. Women who fall outside of this model are seen not just as undesired but as transgressive. They are unattractive because they do not cater to the male gaze; rude because they speak freely; and masculine because they assert autonomy, traits that defy the prescribed gender order. This dichotomy is not simply symbolic. As Schippers (2017) argues, pariah femininity threatens the symbolic order of gender hierarchy by supposedly contaminating masculinity or undermining the legitimacy of male dominance. For Tate and Fuentes, the danger of feminine noncompliance is both ideological and emotional; it signals disorder, emasculation, and social decline (something we address in our final analysis point).

Femmephobia and the Policing of Gender Transgression

Schippers’ (2017) framework allows us to see that the regulation of femininity within manosphere podcasts is not only about ideologizing hegemonic traits, but also about policing deviations, what Hoskin (2020) and others call femmephobia. Within the manosphere, femmephobia operates as a gendered control mechanism, shaming women for perceived excess, too loud, too sexual, too assertive, while pathologizing gender nonconforming or feminist expressions as threats to male order. In such extreme spaces this leads to influencers vilifying them as enemies, the root cause of all social ills, and justifies any violence against them. One of the key places this emerges in manosphere podcast conversations is around women’s sexual desire as deviant from the expectation of feminine purity.

Thus, one of the ways that femmephobia operationalizes the dichotomy between hegemonic and pariah femininities within the manosphere is through the virgin/whore dichotomy, a patriarchal framework that has long been used to regulate women’s behaviour (Hoskin et al., 2023). Within the transcripts we analyzed this binary divides women into two rigid categories: the virgin, or an idealized figure predicated on her sexual purity (untouched by other men) and the whore, a woman already “used” by other men whose sexual prowess is threatening and dangerous. The ideal woman, as we outlined above is portrayed as a “submissive, loyal partner deserving of protection, while “undesirable women”—often feminists, career-driven individuals, or those deemed sexually autonomous—are demonized” (Schwartz, 2020). This framework is deeply embedded in manosphere rhetoric, where femininity itself becomes a site of contempt. As Menzie (2022) shows, incel discourse devalues hyper-feminine women or what they term a “Stacy,” figures who are both desired and despised for embodying emphasized femininity while withholding sexual access. Likewise, what incel’s term a “Becky” represents a more flexible form of femmephobia directed at women perceived as average or insufficiently feminine. In both cases, women are judged less for their individual behaviour than for how well they reproduce patriarchal ideals of availability and submission. However, even those who conform to patriarchal expectations remain trapped in a precarious position—constantly monitored, infantilized, and at risk of being devalued should they step outside the boundaries of accepted femininity (Schwartz, 2020).

The sexist double standard of the virgin/whore dichotomy is seen clearly in Tate’s discussion with Johnson again, where they outline and normalize men’s serial infidelity as an expectation and valorize it while at the same time asserting as an absolute truth that women show their affection and commitment via monogamy. In one segment Tate brags about how much he sleeps around and the woman he loves, his primary partner, doesn’t talk to other guys, while Johnson talks about being both a bad boy and pro-family (Andrew Tate & 21 Studios, 00:06:45) Tate critiques his own mom for being upset about the father’s infidelity and uses this as a pretext for arguing male cheating as negative is “propagated by the powerful females” (Andrew Tate & 21 Studios, 00:08:44). Here, idealized femininity accepts male cheating as natural and pariah femininity is critical of it, thus contaminating the so-called hierarchical gender order.

View Full Size

Misogyny in Tate Speech: Interview with Rollo Tomassi

Citation: Journal of Femininities 2026; 10.1163/29501229-bja10032

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In the interview with Tomassi, Tate raises concerns around trends towards polyamory in Western relationships that they decry are being driven by women. They raise the spectre that such relationships cuck men and work against the social order by allowing women to have sex beyond their heteronormative coupling. Tate suggests this “goes against our, our evolutionary imperatives, right?” which Tomassi confirms with a discussion of paternity that establishes men can hold multiple partners but if their women partner’s due there is a risk their children are someone else’s (Andrew Tate & Rollo Tomassi, 00:07:57 – 00:08:34). Again, sanctioned femininity includes women’s fidelity and reproductive labour; while contaminating, pariah femininity threatens this with sexual autonomy outside of heteronormative monogamy.

View Full Size

Proportion of Misogynistic vs. Non-Misogynistic Speech in Tate Speech: Interview with Rollo Tomassi

Citation: Journal of Femininities 2026; 10.1163/29501229-bja10032

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

This episode, more than any other in our analysis, reflects the highest volume of misogynistic content. As visualized in Figure 3, misogynistic rhetoric is sustained throughout the episode, with consistent spikes in emotionally charged language. Figure 4 confirms that 20% of all sentences in this episode were classified as misogynistic by the model, the highest of any episode analyzed in this paper.

Tate and Tomassi make clear for listeners that there is a double standard to uphold if men are to maintain idealized versions of contemporary gender roles. This double standard includes women’s submission and sexual purity to their male partners. This is disproportionately constrained in contrast to the kinds of sexual freedom given to the men in this dynamic. In fact, both podcasters speak directly to practices of infidelity as a marker of men’s freedom, one not extended to women within this dynamic. This means that freedom is selective based on gender and requires women to be submissive rather than free. If they do not, it leads to the cucking—or femininization—of men. This is the collateral damage of women exploring the same sexual agency and freedom according to men. Femmephobia reasserts itself here as the fear of men being tainted by the very expectations prescribed to women. Femmephobia when applied to men’s status shows very clearly the inequities and misogyny of idealized femininity. The downstream impact of this misogynist logic normalizes abusive forms of control and jealousy in heterosexual relationships. Both Tate and Fuentes use such transgressions as a justification to advocate violence against women in their podcasts.

Within manosphere podcasts women who defy traditional gender norms are portrayed as duplicitous, untrustworthy, and dangerous to men and society. This makes them very clearly aligned with the category of pariah femininity which manosphere influences respond with derision and calls for containment. Such reactions are clear forms of femmephobia as regulatory rhetorical practice. For instance, Fuentes bluntly labels the women whose actions or lifestyle he disapproves of as whores and treats them with open contempt. This is apparent in the Fuentes episode we analyzed where he discusses the controversy around Nala Rae who was formerly ranked in the top 1% of OnlyFans accounts but then publicly converted to born-again Christianity (America First – Episode 1317). Fuentes feels women acting as free sexual agents are responsible for many social ills. He mockingly introduces Rae as, “a former whore… She was a whore, but she’s not anymore. So everyone needs to try and marry her and respect her…” (America First – Episode 1317, 00:04:02 – 00:04:09). His sarcastic tone makes clear he does not truly consider her reformed; to him, her past sexual independence permanently marks her as a so-called bad woman. For him Rae is duplicitous for using her attractiveness to capture men’s attention. He declares that “it’s time for men to get tough on women and say shut up” (America First – Episode 1317, 01:19:54). This rhetorical escalation maps onto Figure 5, which shows a distinct spike in misogynistic language between the 70–90-minute mark—corresponding to Fuentes’ most aggressive calls for the re-domestication of women.

View Full Size

Misogyny in America First: Episode 1317

Citation: Journal of Femininities 2026; 10.1163/29501229-bja10032

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

He advises that what he labels bad women leave public space and that they should “cover up…go away. Get married. And raise some kids” (America First – Episode 1317, 01:20:21). Here Fuentes uses his denigration of Rae to advocate for an idealized hegemonic femininity where sexuality is acceptable within heterosexual marriage and raising children. Fuentes argues “women need to be modest, and they need to be segregated, and they need to be groomed not for pornography or for telling their truth on TikTok, but for being a submissive housewife” (America First – Episode 1317, 01:21:57). He lays out a division of labour within this schema where men work and provide, and women do all the care labour for the family including household duties and child rearing.

Fighting the Monstrous Feminine: Containing the Threat Pariah Femininity Poses to Civilization

While the virgin/whore dichotomy delineates boundaries of acceptable sexuality, the manosphere’s most extreme rhetorical moves occur when femininity crosses into perceived danger—when it becomes monstrous. As mentioned earlier, for Tate and Fuentes, pariah femininity is destabilizing, duplicitous and socially corrosive. Drawing on Barbara Creed’s (1993) theorization of the monstrous feminine, these podcasters depict feminists, queer people, and non-submissive women as both symbolic and material threats to patriarchal order. In doing so, they mobilize a politics of fear and incite a reactionary call to reassert control. Fuentes, for example, openly advocates physical violence (“why should we not grab these women by their necks?”) against modern day women (America First – Episode 1192, 00:53:05). Similar narratives appear in Tate’s conversation with both Johnson and Tomassi, where is idea of controlling women through physical violence is discussed casually. For both, the offense is not just women’s defiance, but their audacity to desire autonomy. As Fuentes puts it, women’s greatest offense is “they want to have it all. They really want to have it all ways” (America First – Episode 1192. 00:53:14). This rhetorical move frames women’s demands for equity as unreasonable, while men’s similar aspirations are never questioned. The implicit message is clear: the social contract accepts women only as objects of exchange—attractive, domestic, emotionally supportive, and sexually available. Any deviation from this model is framed not merely as inappropriate, but as an attack on masculinity itself, an act deserving of punishment.

This depiction of women as inherently threatening reflects a broader manosphere narrative that positions women as catalysts for civilizational decline. Both Fuentes and Tate frequently invoke the idea of an existential crisis in the West, blaming feminism and queer culture for its perceived collapse. Tate and Johnson’s interview focuses quite heavily at the start on state of western civilization prompted by a t-shirt that reads “the future is queer” where Tate states inversely, “The future is masculine, of course” (Andrew Tate & 21 Studios, 00:04:51 – 00:04:52) as if it is a self-evident natural fact. This builds a narrative that men are responsible for all of history and civilization and women benefit at no cost except for playing a role as supporter (Andrew Tate & 21 Studios, 00:05:34 – 00:05:37). They explicitly discuss that the “female imperative on society” is not making anything better (Andrew Tate & 21 Studios, 00:05:58). It is unclear what they mean by the female imperative as they gloss over it quickly. It appears as a shorthand, commonly used phrase in Tate’s discourse, that hails his listeners into a shared space of understanding. This assertion of the future being masculine as well as the narrative of men as the sole producer of civilization belies an anxiety around women and queer folks as threats to the (moral) order of things.

Creed’s (1993) theory helps contextualize this dynamic. She argues that “all human societies have a conception of the monstrous-feminine, of what it is about woman that is shocking, terrifying, horrific, abject” (1). Manosphere culture is no different and it is worth considering the contours of what is shocking, terrifying, horrific and abject about women for male influencers in this realm. Chang (2022) offers important insights on this via her analysis of a now inactive incel subreddit. She employs the monstrous-feminine to explore incel rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes women (via the term femoids which reduces them to bodies) to advocate for violence and justify gendered hate. As Chang notes “the monstrous-feminine has no inherent qualities. She is created through representation to enforce behavior and justify patriarchal oppression” (2022, p. 257). This includes an enforcement of properly feminine behaviors and the demonization of those who disobey. The abjection and terror of disobedient women within manosphere discourse seems to center around women seeking equal access to freedoms and personal agency that men in these spaces feel entitled to as a natural or given imperative (Manne, 2021).

This idea of the treacherous so-called female imperative comes up often in the podcast discourse of both Tate and Fuentes. In Tate’s conversations with Tomassi he notes that the entire Western system is rigged against men and is only getting worse. He notes “everything from marriage to having kids to divorce, everything, the whole system is rigged against you and they will destroy your life” (Andrew Tate & Rollo Tomassi, 00:07:12 – 00:07:19). Tate presents non-compliant women as threats, though often in terms of what they do to men. He describes modern life as a minefield for men, “Being a man’s always been shit, and compared to being a woman, it will always be permanently shit… The situations men are in, if they were reversed, would be global tragedies.” Here, women are implicitly cast as a protected class, while men are victims. It also carries an undertone that women are less exposed to hardship (i.e., kept safe at men’s expense), and thus when women do step into traditionally male arenas or challenge men, it is seen as disruptive or unfair. Such rhetoric portrays women as a threat to men, bolstering an us vs. them mentality between the sexes.

The conclusion, or endgame, for manosphere influencers like Tate and Fuentes is indeed to depict this moment as a gender war. While we may treat this critically as a hyperbolic means by which to capture their audience’s attention, the way it is taken up in manosphere podcasts suggests something more troubling. At the end of Tate’s conversation with Johnson in what appears to be an ad for Tate’s digital men’s self-help courses he states the following:

‘Just kill any man that you see.’ You see Christian mothers of six talking about, you know, open castration or castration of men. That has become normalized for American women today. And it’s getting worse every day, every month, every year. So we see women now marching in the streets by the millions. No other hate movement in history has scaled to that level. In 2019, the war on feminism goes global. Feminism has of course infected Europe as well. Feminazis have overrun Europe. We need to fight back. We need to defend ourselves.

andrew tate & 21 studios, 01:02:36 – 01:04:25

There is a level of fearmongering here to sell Tate-branded products that is alarming. There is a dangerous level of disinformation and sensationalist, fantastical positioning of women, even the good Christian mother, as not only untrustworthy but entirely diabolical. It positions women as a threat. It vilifies their right to assemble in protest as evidence of this threat. It makes feminism not only a global war but an infection and a fascist evil. We find the troubling aspect of this to be the call to arms, so to speak, telling the men listening of the need to defend themselves by fighting back. By situating women’s advocacy for equity as a disease and a war they are laying the groundwork to justify real world violence against any women, femmes, or gender non-conforming people who transgress the acceptable bounds of idealized femininity. This, at its core, is an explicit example of stochastic terrorism which uses mass media dissemination to incite violent acts against the group being demonized (Angove, 2024). The term stochastic terrorism is used to raise alarms around the statistical probabilities that such inflamed problematic speech will lead to online and in some cases real world violence (Angove, 2024; Braddock, 2020). It is thus useful to see how stochastic terrorist speech holds an authoritarian impulse to “enforce conformity with an ideal or a ruler, circumscribing the allowable to a tight area usually coded in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation” (Angove, 2024, p. 37). This describes perfectly the discourse of Tate and Fuentes who both have demonstrated the circumscription of femininity within a tight area of gendered possibilities. As Angove notes this relies on establishing a “‘fear” or “terror” around any form of push back by the targeted group noting this use of terror is a “sure driver of this authoritarian conformity through violence” (Angove, 2024, p. 37). This we would suggest is what is at stake in the femmephobia of manosphere podcast discourse.

While we examined the smallest fraction of the discourse here in our analysis, we would argue as stochastic terrorist speech the intentions towards justifying violence against women and gender minorities upheld by these four podcasts are equally present elsewhere in the media ecosystem of the manosphere. It is, arguably, the defining feature of what is clearly a misogynist hate movement committed to the containment and policing of women and other genders not upholding a heteronormative, capitalist, patriarchal status quo.