theguardian.com
Harmful Masculinity Trends Fueled by Social Media
Fitness influencer Ashton Hall's promotion of extreme masculinity practices on Instagram, viewed by nearly 11 million followers, sparks a debate about harmful gender stereotypes and the role of online influencers.
- How do the economic incentives of the internet contribute to the spread of such misogynistic viewpoints?
- The article connects Hall's practices to a broader trend of online influencers promoting extreme and often misogynistic views of masculinity, influencing millions. This is fueled by the monetized attention economy of the internet, where extremity is incentivized.
- What are the immediate impacts of online influencers promoting extreme and potentially harmful views of masculinity on impressionable young men?
- Ashton Hall, a fitness influencer with nearly 11 million Instagram followers, promotes a controversial definition of masculinity involving practices like dunking his face in ice water and rubbing banana peels on his skin. This has sparked a debate about the modern perception of masculinity in Western culture.
- What are the long-term societal consequences of failing to address the normalization of harmful gender stereotypes promoted by online influencers?
- The article suggests a concerning future where the rising influence of such figures could lead to the normalization of harmful gender stereotypes and the erosion of healthy masculinity discussions. The lack of proactive guidance from older generations exacerbates this issue.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the discussion around the negative consequences of online influencers' promotion of toxic masculinity, using loaded language and rhetorical questions to guide the reader toward a critical perspective. The headline and introduction immediately establish a negative tone, setting the stage for a critical analysis of modern masculinity. Examples include the use of terms like "manfluencer", "clown", and "hot, hateful garbage" to describe the influencers and their content.
Language Bias
The article uses highly charged and emotionally loaded language throughout, including terms like "clown," "toxic nutjobs," "hateful garbage," and "bitch dogs." This language is not objective and conveys strong negative connotations, potentially influencing the reader's emotional response and hindering neutral assessment of the issue. More neutral alternatives would include using more descriptive language that avoids judgmental epithets.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative aspects of online masculinity influencers and their impact on young men, neglecting potential positive influences or counter-narratives that promote healthy masculinity. It omits discussion of initiatives or organizations working to combat toxic masculinity and promote positive male role models. The lack of diverse perspectives on masculinity beyond the examples provided limits the reader's understanding of the issue's complexity.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between traditional views of masculinity and the extreme online versions, neglecting the spectrum of healthy masculine identities and expressions. It simplifies the issue to 'traditional' versus 'toxic,' ignoring nuances and complexities within these categories.
Gender Bias
While the article critiques the harmful effects of toxic masculinity, it also uses language that reinforces gender stereotypes. The author's personal experience as a woman informs the narrative, yet it may inadvertently present a biased perspective by emphasizing the female experience in the context of male behavior. Although the article addresses harm caused to women, it does so while engaging in potentially gendered language like referring to men as "toxic nutjobs.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impact of online misogyny and the perpetuation of harmful gender stereotypes on gender equality. The rise of "manfluencers" promoting toxic masculinity, the political erasure of trans people, and the normalization of sexist language in various contexts contribute to a hostile environment and hinder progress towards gender equality. The examples cited, such as the threats against school principals and the promotion of women as "property", directly illustrate the violation of women's rights and the reinforcement of harmful gender norms.