Louis Theroux’s latest documentary promises a no-holds-barred investigation into a hard-to-access network of controversial ‘alpha male’ influencers. What it delivers leaves much to be desired, as we witness how Theroux’s hands-off reporting style is not fit for documenting, or interviewing, the manosphere and its provocateurs.
For Inside the Manosphere, Theroux spends time with a series of celebrity influencers. These men might not define themselves as belonging to a ‘manosphere’, but it’s the best working term for the hypermasculine, misogynist subculture they are part of.
The documentary presents the misogyny, conspiracy thinking and general hatred of the manosphere. It also shows the contradictions of the ideology: these men espouse traditional familial roles while not living them out; they are disgusted by sex workers whilst using them for views and therefore profit; they perpetuate the same unattainable goals of hegemonic masculinity they accuse women of expecting. HStikkytokky (HS), a British streamer who Theroux spends time with in Marbella, is the most honest about these contradictions. In the attention economy of social media, controversy makes money, and he will do anything to make money. As he states, he’s ‘always been a salesman’ whether he believes what he says or not, and its impact on his legion of fans – many of them teenagers – is irrelevant.
Despite the documentary’s narrative being heavily disrupted by the men he encounters and the extensive power they wield, Theroux states, ‘Much of the manosphere is made up ofrelatively uncontroversial comedians and podcasters who broadcast about women, fitness and wealth to a mainly male audience.’ The ‘community of more extreme content creators’ rests at its edges. This is rather a generous take: misogyny and opposition to feminism are central to most definitions of the manosphere. Indeed, how exactly do these comedians and podcasters talk about women? What do they think about wealth, and who do they think controls economies? If Theroux spent more time exploring those influenced by the manosphere, rather than with its celebrities, he might have discovered that the ‘extreme’ views he encountered are more widespread than he thought, and that the manosphere evidently feeds into the alt-right pipeline.
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
Any value Inside the Manosphere has in presenting the misogyny and contradictions of the manosphere are too little, too late. When we discussed it at the South London book club, we agreed that this would have been a useful documentary if it had been released two years ago.
By now, Netflix’s Adolescence has shocked the UK, and most of us are aware that virulent misogynists lurk across social media. Furthermore, the access that Theroux has in these men's lives is not so rare. He is not infiltrating a secret society. These men are public figures who hold self-promotion at the heart of their philosophy. Their opinions are on display across their numerous social media channels and podcasts, and HS spends up to twelve hours a day livestreaming. This cannot be called ‘rare access’.
This highlights what lies at the root of my criticism: that Theroux’s documentary style is not suited to the subject of the manosphere. He approaches it as if he was making a Weird Weekend episode by fixating on eccentric individual characters, rather than by substantially interrogating the expansive network that comprises the manosphere. The ‘alpha male of the month’ may change as influencers lose and gain popularity or venture off to new horizons, but a broad shared ideology remains.
In getting caught up in the bluff and braggadocio of the individuals he encounters, Theroux is diverted from further investigation into the ideology and reach of their subculture on a larger scale, sprawling though it is.
He appears, at times, to accept their self-aggrandising at face value, offering minimal resistance or critical pushback. That is Theroux’s style, more report than interrogation. He does occasionally provoke the men he meets and offers some challenge to their views. This rebuttal is particularly well displayed during his appearance on Myron Gaines’s podcast, but moments like this are far too rare to compensate for his otherwise hands-off approach. Again, these men’s views are not unknown. The ethics of airing these men’s views without adequate challenge is questionable.
Theroux receives a level of candour from the men he speaks to, which is something that a female journalist would likely not be afforded. A certain amount of casual rapport may be useful for disarming some of the documentary subjects, but these are people who champion their views openly and proudly. This approach is largely not necessary here, unlike in Theroux’s earlier work with the more evasive white supremacists. Manosphere influencers such as Gaines, who publicly proclaims that women should not have the right to vote, do not need coaxing out of their shell. Indeed, part of the manosphere’s appeal to its audience is that its proponents are not afraid to speak the so-called ‘truth’ in the age of wokeness and censorship. Theroux’s approach is fundamentally incompatible with the modern-day internet provocateur.
WHO RUNS THE WORLD?
Belief in antisemitic conspiracy theories is common amongst the men Theroux meets. Whether this is genuine or just for views, the impact is the same. The limitations of Theroux’s approach are exposed yet again when his interviewees bring up the subject of whichever secret group they think runs the world. To give him credit, when Sneako expresses that the government is run by a Satanist cabal started by the Rothschilds, Theroux does remark that his beliefs resemble antisemitic conspiracy theories. However, he misses the opportunity to ask Sneako about his own relationship to power; if the government is run by a shady cabal, what does that mean for Trump, whom he was a firm supporter of and whose inauguration and celebratory ball he attended?
In the final showdown set up by HS, however, Theroux flounders. HS says, ‘Have I said in a clip, “Fuck the Jews?” Yes. Does it mean I’m antisemitic? No, I’m clip farming.’ He points out that Sam, his camera man, is Jewish. It would be interesting to hear from Sam, but Theroux doesn’t speak to him and instead leaves him to livestream their meeting uninterrupted. When HS asks him if he thinks Israel is committing genocide, Theroux freezes, unable to coherently respond. HS is free to continue on his rant: ‘I’m not a puppet. I’m not controlled. No one’s my daddy. Savile’s your daddy. The Jews are your daddy.’ Theroux is stunned, unable or unwilling to argue back.
WOMEN
A common criticism of Inside the Manosphere is that Theroux should have spent more time speaking to the women around the influencers he meets: their partners, friends, employees, and in HS’s case, his mum. A greater focus on these women could have provided a more complex picture of the lives of Theroux’s subjects and their entourages. This is real ‘rare access’ that Theroux does not take advantage of.
When he does have the opportunity to speak with the women orbiting the manosphere, Theroux’s nonconfrontational approach limits him again. Justin Waller and Myron Gaines both answer questions directed at their partners while they are present, and Theroux follows their lead, continuing the conversation with the men.
Theroux appears shocked that Kristen, Waller’s partner, is accepting of Waller’s one-way monogamy and interested in doing ‘bedroom stuff’ with him and other women. Some members of our book club thought that Theroux came across as prudish or moralistic about this. Nonmonogamy is not necessarily the most shocking aspect of these men and their relationships, and rich men having affairs is certainly nothing new.
Waller explains that he uses Kristen to attract other women; on a date he’ll show them her photo ‘and go straight for the threesome.’ Theroux thinks that this is ‘slightly aggressive’ but does not ask Kristen – who is standing next to him what she thinks. Was she aware of this? Is she okay with it? Did she suggest it? We don’t find out. The opportunity to query how much of Waller’s ‘game’ is his, or is actually derived from Kristen, is missed.
THE INFLUENCED
The documentary’s most poignant moments occur when Theroux spends time with Matty and Chris, fans of Waller, who is a steel entrepreneur and influencer in Miami. Here, we see how attraction to the manosphere often stems from very real economic problems. It is hard to get a job; work is exploitative; and increasingly, a traditional nine-to-five job no longer offers stability or a good quality of life. This is a situation we recognise as socialists; but for proponents of the manosphere, these are not the lacerations of capitalism but of the dominance of feminism, or ‘the matrix’. The solution is individual hustle, not collective action, fitting neatly into the long-held American values of rugged individualism and self-improvement.
Matty had previously been homeless, but he questions why anyone should have given him a hand up. He tells Theroux these hardships are what makes a man. ‘As men we’re meant to suffer, we’re not meant to be happy… And we don’t believe in depression either.’ Matty’s brother had recently killed himself. This interview is overwhelmingly sad as we see how vulnerable, and therefore manipulable, Matty is.
This pessimism and insecurity create fertile ground for the manosphere, which belittles the role of men in today’s society and then sells them solutions. Waller ‘negs’ Matty in the same way a pick up artist would a woman: ‘No one's going to invite him on a trip to Miami,’ he says, ‘He has to create value in the world. He has to be valuable to other men.’
Theroux’s time with Matty and Chris does provide a genuinely rare glimpse into the lives and thought processes of two young men attracted to the manosphere. The documentary would have benefitted from more of this, and less time with the overexposed influencers.
FAILURE TO ADAPT
Throughout Inside the Manosphere, Theroux’s approach is too passive and he fails to adapt to the brash personalities of his subjects. As a result, not only does he fail to adequately challenge them – something I and countless viewers would have wanted from a documentary on the manosphere – but he also fails to dig deeper and ask more, and more probing, questions, which would have made a considerably more interesting documentary.
In the documentary’s final showdown, Elaine, HS’s mum, accuses Theroux of hypocrisy. ‘If you don’t agree with what Harrison’s doing then why are you making money off of it on a programme by publicising it. You’re doing it because you think he’s a controversial character, so you’re making money off the back of it and that’s what all your programmes are.’ After 90 minutes of watching Theroux allow the provocateurs he meets to broadcast their opinions with little objection, one can’t help but think she has a point.
At best, Inside the Manosphere is a loose introduction to the manosphere for the uninitiated, and a decent episode one without a sequel. At worst, it offers a limp handshake of acknowledgement to the men Theroux meets, as it broadcasts their virulent misogyny and antisemitism without much criticism. Perhaps a grimace and a raised eyebrow aren’t enough anymore.
Comments?We welcome replies, corrections and debate pieces. Contact us