Algorithmic Masculinity and the Commodification of Authority: Leadership, Influence, and Digital Power in the Contemporary Manosphere
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2026.3.20.40Keywords:
Abstract
The rapid expansion of digital platforms has enabled the emergence of alternative leadership models within loosely connected online communities collectively described as the “manosphere.” Prominent figures - including Andrew and Tristan Tate, Myron Gaines, Justin Waller, Sneako, and Harrison Sullivan - have cultivated highly visible forms of authority grounded in performative masculinity, economic aspiration, and ideological polarization. This paper critically examines whether such figures constitute legitimate leadership or represent algorithmically amplified constructions of influence driven by attention economies and monetization strategies.
Drawing on critical theory, digital sociology, and leadership studies, the article conceptualizes manosphere leadership as a hybrid formation in which symbolic capital, discursive control, and platform affordances intersect. Building on recent work on femmephobic discourse, the analysis demonstrates how authority in these environments is not institutionally grounded but constructed through repetition, emotional intensity, and identity alignment.
The findings suggest that manosphere leadership operates less as a stable leadership model and more as a performative and commodified system of influence in which visibility substitutes legitimacy and algorithmic amplification replaces institutional validation. The paper further explores the implications of this phenomenon for educational contexts, where such narratives increasingly shape young male identity formation and social attitudes.
The study contributes to leadership theory by introducing the concept of algorithmic authority, highlighting how digital infrastructures actively participate in the construction of leadership, and challenging traditional distinctions between influence, power, and legitimacy in contemporary society.
References
1. Ahmed, S. (2023). The feminist killjoy handbook: The radical potential of getting in the way. Hachette UK.
2. Allan, J. A. (2025). The Flight from the Feminine and Femmephobia in the Critical Study of Men and Masculinities. Journal of Femininities, 2(1), 61-86.
3. Allen, L. (2025). Hegemonic masculinity and addressing gender inequality. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 33(3), 575-591.
4. Almanssori, S. (2025). The Andrew Tate effect: a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools. Gender and Education, 1-19.
5. Angove, J. (2024). Stochastic terrorism: critical reflections on an emerging concept. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 17(1), 21-43.
6. Banet-Weiser, S., & Miltner, K. M. (2016). # MasculinitySoFragile: Culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist media studies, 16(1), 171-174.
7. Bazzano, M. (2023). Everybody wants to be a manager: On masculinity, microfascism and the manosphere. In Psychotherapy and Unstable Notions of Masculinity (pp. 21-34). Routledge.
8. Beel, N. (2024). ACADEMIC CRITIQUES OF THE MANOSPHERE: ANALYSING THEMES AND NARRATIVES. New Male Studies, 13(2).
9. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. JG Richardson’s Handbook for Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.
10. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. The SAGE handbook of social media, 1(1), 233-253.
11. Carter, M., & Allmendinger, R. (2025). Red pill or blue pill? Do we shape AI’s future, or do we allow it to shape us?. In Reimagining business schools for the 21st century (pp. 106-118). Manchester University Press.
12. Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society. John wiley & sons.
13. Champ, F. M., Nesti, M. S., Ronkainen, N. J., Tod, D. A., & Littlewood, M. A. (2020). An exploration of the experiences of elite youth footballers: The impact of organizational culture. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 32(2), 146-167.
14. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles.
15. Copland, S. (2023). Weak men and the feminisation of society: Locating the ideological glue between the manosphere and the far-right. Global perspectives on anti-feminism: Far-right and religious attacks on equality and diversity, 116-36.
16. Creed, B. (2023). The monstrous-feminine: Film, feminism, psychoanalysis. Routledge.
17. Erbil, C., Özbilgin, M. F., & Mergen, A. (2025). Red Pill Leadership Behaviours and Discourse Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-21.
18. Eubank, M. R., Nesti, M. S., & Littlewood, M. A. (2017). A culturally informed approach to mental toughness development in high performance sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology.
19. Farias, C., Hastie, P. A., & Mesquita, I. (2017). Towards a more equitable and inclusive learning environment in sport education: Results of an action research-based intervention. Sport, Education and Society, 22(4), 460-476.
20. Foucault, M. (2008). panopticism" from" discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. Race/Ethnicity: multidisciplinary global contexts, 2(1), 1-12.
21. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge, ed. C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon, 90.
22. Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and masculinities, 22(4), 638-657.
23. Green, M., & Kay, A. (2026). The Development of Transferable Skills within Professional Football Academies. Football Studies, 100036.
24. Harari, Y., Harris, T., & Raskin, A. (2023). You can have the blue pill or the red pill, and we’re out of blue pills. The New York Times, 24.
25. Haslop, C., Ringrose, J., Cambazoglu, I., & Milne, B. (2024). Mainstreaming the manosphere’s misogyny through affective homosocial currencies: Exploring how teen boys navigate the Andrew Tate effect. Social Media+ Society, 10(1), 20563051241228811.
26. Hawley, G. (2024). From Practical Critics to Hateful Malcontents: The Rise and Fall of the Online “Manosphere”. In Far-Right Newspeak and the Future of Liberal Democracy (pp. 126-142). Routledge.
27. Hoebanx, P. (2025). Red pill women: Heterosexual fantasies in misogynistic spaces. Men and Masculinities, 28(2), 177-196.
28. Hoskin, R. A. (2020). “Femininity? It’s the aesthetic of subordination”: Examining femmephobia, the gender binary, and experiences of oppression among sexual and gender minorities. Archives of sexual behavior, 49(7), 2319-2339.
29. Hoskin, R. A. (2019). Femmephobia: The role of anti-femininity and gender policing in LGBTQ+ people’s experiences of discrimination. Sex Roles, 81(11), 686-703.
30. Jane, E. A. (2016). Misogyny online: A short (and brutish) history.
31. Jane, E. A. (2020). Online abuse and harassment. The international encyclopedia of gender, media, and communication, 116.
32. Kimmel, M. (2017). Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. Hachette UK.
33. Love, T. P., Prskalo, E., & Moloney, M. E. (2025). Hatespeech or Tatespeech? Andrew Tate and the rise of the radical misogynist. New Media & Society, 14614448251374158.
34. McCashin, D. (2024). Understanding the Andrew Tate phenomenon among boys–a state of the literature review and recommendations for future directions.
35. Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist media studies, 18(4), 543-559.
36. Manne, K. (2017). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press.
37. McGinley, S. V. (2025). Much the same or radical change?: the case for a multisectoral approach to quality physical education (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).
38. Menzie, L. (2022). Stacys, Beckys, and Chads: The construction of femininity and hegemonic masculinity within incel rhetoric. In Critical femininities (pp. 69-85). Routledge.
39. Özkula, S. M., Omena, J. J., & Gajjala, R. (2024). Researching visual protest and politics with “extra-hard” data. Journal of Digital Social Research, 6(2), 46-65.
40. Padda, K. K., MacDonald, S., & Ruest, N. (2026). Regulating femininity in the manosphere: An exploration of femmephobic discourse in Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes podcasts. Journal of Femininities, 1(aop), 1-29.
41. Regehr, K., Shaughnessy, C., Zhao, M., Cambazoglu, I., Turner, A., & Shaughnessy, N. (2025). Normalizing toxicity: the role of recommender algorithms for young people’s mental health and social wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1523649.
42. Ribeiro, M. H., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Long, S., ... & Zannettou, S. (2021, May). The evolution of the manosphere across the web. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media (Vol. 15, pp. 196-207).
43. Roberts, S. T. (2019). Behind the screen. Yale University Press.
44. Rollano, C., Pérez‐González, J. C., & Román‐González, M. (2026). A Framework for Understanding the Manosphere. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 20(1), e70123.
45. Salter, M. (2018). From geek masculinity to Gamergate: The technological rationality of online abuse. Crime, Media, Culture, 14(2), 247-264.
46. Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and society, 36(1), 85-102.
47. Sinclair, G., Kearns, C., Liston, K., Kilvington, D., Black, J., Doidge, M., ... & Lynn, T. (2025). Online abuse, emotion work and sports journalism. Journalism Studies, 26(1), 101-119.
48. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge Malden, MA.
49. Sugiura, L. (2021). The emergence and development of the manosphere. In The incel rebellion: The rise of the manosphere and the virtual war against women (pp. 15-36). Emerald Publishing Limited.
50. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media.
51. Theocharis, Y., Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K., & Bimber, B. (2023). Platform affordances and political participation: how social media reshape political engagement. West European Politics, 46(4), 788-811.
52. Tufekci, Z. (2014). Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday, 19(7). doi:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.4901
53. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press.
54. Vallerga, M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2022). Hegemonic masculinities in the ‘Manosphere’: A thematic analysis of beliefs about men and women on The Red Pill and Incel. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 22(2), 602-625.
55. Van Veeren, E. S., & Moerking, S. E. (2025). Taking the Red Pill: Conspiracy Theories, Gender, and the ‘elusive epistemologies’ of the Manosphere. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1.
56. West, S. M. (2019). Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business & society, 58(1), 20-41.
57. Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203-213). Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.