The Lancet’s dangerous medicalisation of the manosphere
The medial establishment is summoning matron to deal with free speech
LAURA PERRINS
Authorities have long had a deep seated desire to restrict speech they disagree with. In authoritarian states excuses are unnecessary, but in liberal democracies such as Britain a justification for censorship must be found. The latest excuse comes from an independent think tank on gender justice Global 50/50 — via the once respected medical journal the Lancet.
A so-called report published in the Lancet said the manosphere and online misogyny should be treated by the government as a public health issue, in the same way as obesity or smoking. It was dutifully publicised by all the mainstream media, and came three days after the government announced it would give £15million of taxpayers money to a dedicated fund to tackle misogyny in workplaces, schools and public places amid concernsabout the rise of “manosphere” influencers.
The Lancet report defines the manosphere as “a diffuse commercial ecosystem and loose collection of online communities united by shared beliefs about masculinity, misogyny and male victimisation.”
The authors also said — of internet speech they do not approve of — that “men’s problems are framed [in the manosphere] as the result of feminism rather than structural conditions, and masculine identity is commodified through products and paid content that normalise and reinforce health-harming and performance-oriented masculinities.”
The manosphere is, according to this report, so bad for their health that it requires governmental intervention in a similar way to the great evils of smoking and ultra-processed food.
If a societal ill is identified, then the British public often yearn for nanny
This is a very clever strategy by the leftist censorship industrial complex. The British do not like interference with speech — even speech that offends. But, if a societal ill is identified, then the British public often yearn for nanny. If “experts” in a respected medical journal identify speech as a threat to public health then matron, in the form of government intervention, is summoned. But it will take a lot more than a spoonful of sugar to make this medicine go down.
The public still believe that a medical journal such as The Lancet is for proper medical research. Today, experts in the Lancet include people such as Prof Kent Buse, who is a “political economist with expertise in policy analysis” and is co-founder and co-CEO of the “gender justice” think tank who authored this report.
This is not the first time speech has been medicalised. Frequently speakers are condemned as being “phobic” if they object to the latest woke crusade. Traditionally, to have a phobia is to have an irrational fear of something: the labelling of someone as homophobic or transphobic was shorthand, therefore, to denote them as irrational — and therefore unworthy of being listened to.
The authors of the Lancet report claim that a coordinated response from governments, schools, health services and community organisations is required to crack down on “dangerous” speech on the internet. It seems Ofcom and the Online Safety Act 2023 are insufficient. More power must be given to more people to save young men and the public from the manosphere.
The report argues that the manosphere has “evolved into a highly lucrative online industry” that makes money by promoting “the most extreme expressions of misogyny and aggrieved masculinity.” It is certainly true that extreme views are rewarded on the internet but this is not exclusive to the manosphere.
The truth is, even if you find men like Andrew Tate ridiculous or offensive — which I do — or the looks-maxing industry guilty of preying on the insecurities of vulnerable male teenagers, their views and opinions are a matter of free speech. Shutting them down is not a matter of public health, but censorship.
Some conservatives are old enough to remember when the desire to censor speech came from the right — particularly the American right. School boards sought to ban books including Toni Morrison’s Beloved and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Various excuses were given, such as the foul or racist language and scenes of sexual abuse, but the real reason is always the same. School boards and/or parents did not like what the author was saying and didn’t want their children reading it. Today, the left do not like what the men of the manosphere have to say on feminism and they do not want young men hearing it.
The Lancet and think tanks on “gender justice” can claim this attack on speech is necessary to protect public health — but no one should be fooled as to the true intent.
There was no report in the Lancet that called the transgender social contagion spread by online influencers a public health issue requiring government intervention. If a child fell under the influence of trans influencers that really did compromise their health by putting them on puberty blockers, which the Cass review later condemned as untested. Indeed, if the vulnerable teenager remained on that path their health and sexual function was further damaged through “trans affirming operations”, which are known as genital mutilation to most reasonable observers.
In the Lancet, Buse added “this is a business model, not a fringe. Outrage and grievance are good for business, so the system rewards the most extreme content. Expect the playbook that served tobacco so well: blame the individual, and call regulation an attack on freedom. Public health has a tested toolkit for commercial harms and we should use it.”
The good professor is very clever. He has anticipated that some people will object to his characterisation of speech as a public health issue as “an attack on freedom.” That is, of course, because it is an attack on freedom.
Interestingly, on the 50/50 Secretariat page, Professor Kent Buse is the only man listed. The nine others are all women. These women are clearly not happy with what the young men are consuming on the internet.
This makes sense: women have always been the censorious sex. In the US they pushed for Prohibition, triggered a MeToo reckoning without the requirement of due process, and now they are coming for the manosphere. Indeed, before Andrew Tate there was the rapper Eminem who upset a lot of suburban mothers. In 2001 the US House Telecommunications Subcommittee had a hearing about whether they needed to make the labelling process for albums stricter for obscene works, including his albums.
Eminem had a very clear response. In his song White America ,he said he would “lead the march right up to the steps of Congress, And piss on the lawns of the White House, To burn the *galf* and replace it with a Parental Advisory sticker.” (The first amendment protects the act of burning the American flag in protest.) That’s a pretty good line.
I don’t propose anyone should relieve themselves on the steps of the office of the Lancet. That would be unBritish, not to mention unhygienic. In fact, it could lead to a public health crisis far more serious than anything the manosphere might create.
••••
••••
••••
••••
(UKR)