The Impotent Manosphere:  Collecting Clicks and Chicks Don’t Make Masculinity

“If your children come from one woman you are not a conqueror.”¹

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church.”²

“Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman.”³

It’s no longer a marginalized sideshow.  Now, it’s comfortably mainstream and worse, it’s invading the church.  What is it?  The “manosphere” pushed by the Theobros⁴ and the crass podcasts and products  they consume and craft:  Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, et al.  Their vibe is largely performative:  beards, braggadocio, and bulging biceps – and often boastful misogyny.⁵ A market certainly exists for this stuff, but does consuming this stuff make one more masculine?  The facts and theology shout “no!” – Let’s get to the gist.

The Scope – or Man-spread – of the Manosphere

In a recent article, scholar Anthony Bradley of the Acton institute exposes what’s culturally and religiously significant about this manosphere trend – and it’s not good:

[T]his digital migration [to the manosphere] reveals less about the seductive power of online characters and more about the profound dereliction of duty by the very cultural and religious institutions designed to forge masculine virtue.⁶

Citing another article⁷, Bradley summarizes the surprising state of who now inhabits the digital manosphere:

Key Takeaways⁸ from the Study (as reported by Mussen in The Standard):

• Widespread Engagement: A significant 61% of young men (16-25) in the UK regularly engage with masculinity influencers online.
• Unexpected Demographics: Contrary to stereotypes, Mussen notes the study found these influencers are most popular among white, older (within the 16-25 range), full-time employed, university-educated young men from high-income households.

• Impact on Beliefs: The data Mussen presents shows that young men engaging with these influencers tend to hold more restrictive views:

• 83% believe men must be providers (vs. 62% of non-engagers).

• 70% believe women have it easier than men (vs. 45% of non-engagers).

• 67% believe feminism is used to keep men down (vs. 50% of non-engagers).

• The Appeal: Why watch? Mussen points out the study found top reasons include finding the content entertaining (50%), motivating (47%), and thought-provoking (43%).

Bradley also notes that this “digital testosterone” may correlate to disordered masculinity:

A Link to Distress?: Interestingly, Mussen highlights that young men watching these influencers reported slightly higher levels of feeling restless (27% vs 24%), sad (24% vs 20%), and worthless (25% vs 22%) compared to those who don’t engage.

This doesn’t sound too manly, does it?  If fact, it seems to mirror what these wannabe macho-men  despise most in women:  emotionalism, being easily offended, and perhaps repressed femineity.  What do these data mean?  Bradley identifies the crucial point – and opportunity – presented by this study.  The report:

…underscores that young men are actively seeking guidance online about modern masculinity. The critical question it raises is whether they’re finding healthy, diverse perspectives or falling into potentially harmful, restrictive narratives.⁹

Why?   What is it about this digital manosphere that pulls young men into its orbit?   Bradley proposes that:

The digital world hums with the siren song of confident, powerful men promising direction to legions of younger men adrift in a sea of cultural confusion. Figures who project unwavering certainty and strength garner followings that established institutions might envy, tapping into a palpable yearning among young men navigating the fraught landscape of modern masculinity.¹⁰

Notice the characteristics Bradley identifies as man-magnets:  confidence, certitude, and clarity of direction.  These are not inherently defective characteristics.  Paul makes the same point using musical and martial metaphors oriented toward using kingdom-edifying spiritual gifts:

If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?¹¹

The issue therefore becomes what is the object of the manosphere’s confident and clear certainty?  What does all this say about the current cultural milieu?  It ultimately

[S]ignals a profound deficit in the kind of mentorship and moral formation our contemporary culture offers. . . . Young men, seeking anchorage and aspiration, gravitate towards the loudest and seemingly most self-assured voices, mistaking performative dominance for authentic strength because, too often, it’s the only model presented with conviction.¹²

Young men, Bradley notes,

…crave direction on navigating relationships, careers, and their place in the world—a hunger unmet by a culture often more interested in critique than construction, leaving them vulnerable to simplistic and sometimes harmful ideologies¹³ peddled by digital demagogues.¹⁴

Young men’s bellies ache with voracious appetites.¹⁵ Yet, Christian institutions, which should be filling their spiritual stomachs with solid food,¹⁶ instead make them anorectic or worse. Enter the manosphere and its digital testosterone.  What does the manosphere menu promise for their empty plates?  The recipes are simple and filling – like junk food, but lack spiritual nutrients:

These online figures often offer pathways emphasizing action,¹⁷ reclaiming power,¹⁸ or adhering to specific codes,¹⁹ bypassing the often messy and difficult work of risk-taking, repentance, vulnerability, relational healing, and enlisting in the work of fighting evil.²⁰

In other words, the manosphere and its advocates do not promote a full-orbed Christian conception of masculinity.  Rather, the manosphere appeals to base urges and pagan carnal extravagance:  Chest-pounding unvarnished emotional bravado, yet these boys are in reality” men without chests”²¹– becoming less and less manly as they pursue a faux masculinity.  The manosphere’s prophets chortle about “body counts”²² and biceps, as if these form the core essence of masculinity.  Andrew Tate once “counseled” his considerable X audience:

“If your children come from one woman you are not a conqueror.”²³

Masculinity is redefined and reduced to mean impregnating as many women as possible; this is what conquerors do!  But standards exist:  these bedded women must be, in Tate’s words, “beautiful baby mothers.”  This sets the tone for Tate’s sociology of being a father:

This is true. The only way to have children without becoming a shadow of yourself is to have multiple beautiful baby mothers producing you children, live with your brother fighting and working. The kids visit for a few hours each day at your decision. Kids are for women to tolerate. Women and kids one table, men on another. The old way is the best way.²⁴

This vibe is often trumpeted by purported Christians who condemn the “Trashworld” supposedly spawned by feminism and other bugaboos and scapegoats, whether real and imagined.  This attitude reflects a blame-casting crisis of responsibility.²⁵  Many of these keyboard warriors display uncommonly shy intellect, to put it gently.  For example, the author of The Boniface Option,²⁶ Andrew Isker – presents what amounts to a foul-tongued and emotionally-charged temper tantrum – one screed follows another.  Yet, hyperventilating and verbal frothing fails to establish masculinity.  Isker fails to understand that the very thing he despises (and blames) – Trashworld – is a pagan construct from the nihilist “Bronze Age Pervert,” Costin Alamariu, a Yale Political Science professor – hardly the “go to” person or institution for rebuilding society.²⁷ But, this is emblematic of these folks – long on heat and short on light; lots of sizzle and not much steak – few things are worse than arrogant ignorance and yet the manosphere teems with it.  Now, the Christian version to be sure doesn’t fully baptize Tate’s sexual conquestism,²⁸ but they do frequently baptize the “Bronze Age Mindset” underlying it.  And, young men flock to them in droves, often sprinkling “Jesus dust” on this pagan ethos.

All this boisterous bravado is performative, whether raw or baptized.  In reality, what is actually occurring as a by-product of the digital manosphere – in the church and without – is that

We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. . . . We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”²⁹

Intentions and desires aside, the manosphere produces its opposite:  males who lack maturity and self-control who instead relish crassness, profanity, and boast about their whiskey consumption and womanizing, and yet can’t take – are triggered by – a gentle self-deprecating humorous reference that honors women.³⁰ Their purported masculinity is as  illusory as it is fragile.  They are impuissant in every masculine sense that actually matters. Like dogs returning to their vomitous pagan ways, they are fools repeating their folly.³¹  If they have known Jesus, they are behaving as the Gentiles do in the “futility of their minds.”³² In thinking we are to be men, that is, mature, not silly, sophomoric, or stupid.³³ Instead, we must be serious, scholarly, and Scriptural.

How can we as Reformational Christians respond?   One way is to expose these “unfruitful works of darkness.”³⁴ Baptized paganism remains pagan.  Secondly, we must call men to a more excellent way:³⁵ The way that avoids – contrary to the manosphere – becoming boisterous gongs, clashing cymbals, or seeking spectacular displays of power.³⁶ Rather, we must mentor young men with love, exposing their error and correcting them with a firm and yet uncompromising gentleness.  How?

To this end, TxC intends to devote its next Every Square Inch gathering – September 26, and 27 – to this topic with this provocative theme:  True Manhood:  Neither Barbarian Nor Buffoon.  We must – together – remediate the church’s dereliction of duty which drives young men to consume digital testosterone.

We need YOUR SUPPORT – prayers AND funding – to make this a reality.  TxC refuses to extend itself beyond its resources.  We need $35,000 – over and above – our monthly budget to produce this needed event.  Please consider standing with us with your best gift today.

1. https://x.com/Cobratate/status/1891121000600772664 ↩︎
2. Eph. 5:25 ↩︎
3. 1 Peter 3:7 ↩︎
4. For those unfamiliar with this term, consider this article:  Rick Pidcock, Meet the Theobros, who want you to know they’re right about everything, [capitalization in original], https://baptistnews.com/article/meet-the-theobros-who-want-you-to-know-theyre-right-about-everything/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=325806068&gbraid=0AAAAADhrSZzQBzAKVCxKqIzqiEmFU1PV5&gclid=Cj0KCQjwt8zABhDKARIsAHXuD7Yx6dBsEN_99L8ekgRO1NYTmZnhfdlwFHplGE5KQ6Mtdlq-1YYUvgIaAv4nEALw_wcB  Note:  TxC does not necessarily endorse the entirety of this article’s content, nor the more general positions of those interviewed in it.  However, the article does provide some context for what’s transpiring online within the church.  It’s not just pagans who are crass, abusive, and immature. ↩︎
5. Consider a pictorial line up of these macho-pygmies in Reformed culdesacs:  Brian Sauve, Eirc Conn, Joel Webbon, Andrew Isker, Andrew Torba, and Corey Mahler. To varying degrees they sport beards, contend women should not vote, and are adjacent to, or adopt and promote, Kinist, nationalist, and/or racialist, positions, as if this dress and these positions define or confer masculinity.  And, their commitment to these non-Christian positions is evident.    Mahler recently vilely tweeted:  “It is your duty as a White Christian man to keep your wife and children away from blacks” (April 3 posted).  Thankfully, Mahler has been excommunicated from and by his church. See, https://www.christiancentury.org/article/news/lcms-president-calls-excommunicating-white-nationalists and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-LaldrFULk ↩︎
6. Anthony Bradley, The Surprising Truth About Who’s Listening to Andrew Tate (and Why it Matters), https://anthonybbradley.substack.com/p/the-surprising-truth-about-whos-listening?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2126147&post_id=162420212&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2hn8d7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email ↩︎
7. Maddy Mussen, 6 of 10 young men in the UK turning to masculinity influencers, study says, [capitalization in original] https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/masculinty-influencers-andrew-tate-manosphere-b1223592.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email ↩︎
8. Ibid. at note 6 ↩︎
9. Ibid. ↩︎
10. Ibid. ↩︎
11. 1 Cor. 14:7, 8 ↩︎
12. Id. note 6 ↩︎
13. We see this surfacing in pockets of quasi-Reformed cul-de-sacs which breed Kinist, anti-Semitic, racialist, and/or white nationalist notions:  Andrew Isker, Eric Conn, Joel Webbon, Andrew Torba, Stephen Wolfe, et al. ↩︎
14. Id. note 6 ↩︎
15. Compare Phil. 3:19:  Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. ↩︎
16. Heb. 5:14 ↩︎
17. For example, Jordan Peterson, Jocko Willinck, and the Bronze Age Pervert, et al.  For an unimprovable analysis of this latter error, see P. Andrew Sandlin, The Old Bronze Age Mindset Meets to New “Christian Vitalism,” ↩︎
18. This is the explicit lust of the New Right and Christian “Nationalists” – seize Statist power, reward friends, and punish enemies, and hopefully install a Protestant Franco.  See, Jeremy Carl, Reward Friends, Punish Enemies, https://americanmind.org/features/what-trump-should-do-if-he-wins/reward-friends-punish-enemies/ and also, James M. Patterson, The Absurdity of a “Protestant Franco,”  https://lawliberty.org/the-absurdity-of-a-protestant-franco/ https://pandrewsandlin.substack.com/p/the-old-bronze-age-mindset-meets ↩︎
19. Often martial overtones emerge here, things like the “warrior code” etc.  See, e.g., Buck Grant, Warrior Code for Men:  A 28 Day Guide for Personal Freedom, (2019) promising “purpose, confidence, and freedom.”  Sound familiar? ↩︎
20. Id. at note 6 ↩︎
21. C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, (1944) chapter 1 ↩︎
22. This slang terms refers to the number of one’s sexual partners – notice the inherent pagan conception here: Humans, who are embodied persons, are instead reduced simply to the physical, as mere consumable products of matter to be used for one’s pleasure and boasting rights. ↩︎
23. https://x.com/Cobratate/status/1891121000600772664 ↩︎
24. https://x.com/Cobratate/status/1864002724032909595 ↩︎
25. David L. Bahnsen, Crisis of Responsibility:  Our Cultural Addiction to Blame and How You Can Cure It (2018) ↩︎
26. The Boniface Option:  A Strategy for Christian Counteroffensive in a Post-Christian Nation (2023) ↩︎
27. For a critique from the Left, see Rosie Gray, How Bronze Age Pervert Built an Online Following and Injected Anti-Democracy, Pro-Men ideas into the GOP.  For a fair, yet devastating Christian critique of Alamarui and his Christian adopters, see TxC Scholars, P. Andrew Sandlin’, Brian Matton respectively, The New Right-Wing Paganism:  Bronze Age Pagan Masculinity, https://www.ezrainstitute.com/the-new-right-wing-paganism-bronze-age-pagan-masculinity/ and  Baptized Bronze Age Pervert, https://brianmattson.substack.com/p/baptized-bronze-age-pervert, See also this critique from the Conservative perspective, Jack Butler, Bronze Age Meltdown, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bronze-age-meltdown/ ↩︎
28. Yes, this is a neologism signaling that a man’s life is supposedly a zero sum win or lose proposition in every aspect.  This hardly squares with Christian virtue, service, and self-sacrifice.  Instead, this comprises unvarnished paganism and any professing Christian embracing it ought to ashamed.  See, e.g., 1 Cor. 8-10 and Phil. 2. ↩︎
29. Note 19, at 26 ↩︎
30. Case in point:  After Dr. Sandlin humbly noted that women experientially – not ontologically – are “better” than men, Eric Conn quickly moved to mock and label this obvious humor as “evangelical longhouse.”  Notice the code-talking (“longhouse”); that’s often a feature of Gnostic “insiderism” and also smacks of someone who is apparently threatened by someone’s self-deprecating observation.  Hardly a manly response.  Recent Twitter post, shared on Facebook by P. Andrew Sandlin May 2, 2025. ↩︎
31. Proverbs 26:11 ↩︎
32. Eph. 4:17 ↩︎
33. 1 Cor. 14:20; note in Hebrew, being “stupid” is not a slur or insult, but rather, refers to being dull and slow to receive correction.  See, Proverbs 12:1 ↩︎
34. Eph. 5:11 ↩︎
35. 1 Cor. 12:31 ↩︎
36. 1 Cor. 13:1-3 ↩︎