Discursive practices in the manosphere: an analysis of the language of victimhood and blame in Men’s Rights Activism (MRA)
-
Olusegun Oladele Jegede
Abstract
This study investigated the discursive strategies and linguistic choices employed in Men’s Rights Activism (MRA) discourse within online platforms, addressing a significant research gap in the pragmatic analysis of masculinist language. The specific objectives of the study were to analyse the frequency and patterns of discursive strategies used to construct collective identity and contest feminist narratives; to examine the linguistic choices that reinforce or challenge dominant gender ideologies; and to explore how these strategies shape perceptions of gender inequality. Grounded in Relevance Theory and Entman’s Framing Theory, the study adopted a mixed-methods design. Data were purposively selected from Reddit and Twitter between January and May 2025, comprising 60 posts. Thematic analysis, supported by frequency counts, was used to identify dominant rhetorical patterns. The study found that MRA discourse centres on personal narratives, frames men as victims, and externalises blame onto feminism through emotionally charged language. It also revealed the strategic use of ideological presuppositions and traditional gender role framing to legitimise activism. The study concluded that MRA discourse is a linguistically structured form of digital activism that constructs meaning, mobilises identity, and challenges prevailing gender ideologies. The study contributed to existing knowledge by shifting analytical focus from ideological content to pragmatic linguistic function, enhancing understanding of gendered digital discourse.
References
Adesina, O. B. & O. O. Jegede. 2019. A feminist critical discourse analysis of Buchi Emecheta’s The Joys of Motherhood. Papers in English and Linguistics (PEL) 20(3&4). 72–100.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, C. 2019. Toxic masculinity and the manosphere: The politics of misogyny in the digital age. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Benatar, D. 2012. The second sexism: Discrimination against men and boys. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118192337Search in Google Scholar
Blais, M. & F. Dupuis-Déri. 2012. Masculinism and the antifeminist countermovement. Social Movement Studies 11(1). 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.640532.Search in Google Scholar
Coates, J. 2003. Men talk: Stories in the making of masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755617Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, P. 2018. The men’s rights movement and its implications for social justice. Feminist Media Studies 18(4). 678–693.Search in Google Scholar
Connell, R. W. 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society 19(6). 829–859.10.1177/0891243205278639Search in Google Scholar
Dawson, M. & S. Mobayed Vega (eds.). 2023. The Routledge international handbook on femicide and feminicide, 1st edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003202332Search in Google Scholar
Dayter, D. & S. Rüdiger. 2022. The language of pick-up artists: Online discourses of the seduction industry. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003041313Search in Google Scholar
Denes, A. 2011. Biology as consent: Problematising the scientific approach to seducing women’s bodies. Women’s Studies International Forum 34(5). 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2011.05.002.Search in Google Scholar
Douglas, S. 2019. Men’s rights movements and the discourse of victimization. Gender Studies Journal 22(4). 98–115.Search in Google Scholar
Eckert, P. & S. McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21(1). 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.21.1.461.Search in Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4). 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.Search in Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. 2007. Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication 57(1). 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x.Search in Google Scholar
Gallagher, C. 2015. Men’s rights activism and the male victimhood narrative. Social Movement Studies 14(3). 225–242.Search in Google Scholar
Ging, D. 2017. Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities 22(4). 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x17706401.Search in Google Scholar
Giraldi, A. & E. Monk-Turner. 2017. Perception of rape culture on a college campus: A look at social media posts. Women’s Studies International Forum 62. 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2017.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
Gotell, L. & E. Dutton. 2016. Sexual violence in the ‘manosphere’: Antifeminist men’s rights discourses on rape. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 5(2). 65–80. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.310.Search in Google Scholar
Gough, B. 2016. Depression talk online: A qualitative analysis of accountability and authenticity in help seeking and support formulations. Psychology of Men and Masculinity 17(1). 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039456.Search in Google Scholar
Hanna, E. & B. Gough. 2018. Searching for help online: An analysis of peer-to-peer posts on a male-only infertility forum. Journal of Health Psychology 23(7). 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105316644038.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, F. 2023. Incels and ideologies: Exploring how incels use language to construct gender and race. Cham: Palgrave.10.1007/978-3-031-40184-8Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, F. & V. Koller. 2020. Incels, in-groups, and ideologies: The representation of gendered social actors in a sexuality-based online community. Journal of Language and Sexuality 9(2). 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.19014.her.Search in Google Scholar
Hoffman, B., J. Ware & E. Shapiro. 2020. Assessing the threat of incel violence. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 43(7). 565–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610x.2020.1751459.Search in Google Scholar
Jegede, O. O. 2024a. Pragmatic implicature and the articulation of protest in Femi Osofisan’s plays. Creative Saplings 3(9). 21–40. https://doi.org/10.56062/gtrs.2024.3.9.712.Search in Google Scholar
Jegede, O. O. 2024b. Politeness strategies and power dynamics in interactions between characters in Ama Ata Aidoo’s Anowa. Studies in Literature and Language 28(2). 61–70.Search in Google Scholar
Jegede, O. O. 2024c. Face strategies in headlines from the Nigerian Tribune’s court and crime column. Gender Equality: International Journal of Child and Gender Studies 10(1). 66–79. https://doi.org/10.22373/equality.v10i1.21756.Search in Google Scholar
Jegede, O. O. 2024d. Speech acts in the digital sphere: A corpus-based exploration of interactional dynamics on social media platforms. Corpus-based Studies Across Humanities 2. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/csh-2024-0023.Search in Google Scholar
Jegede, O. O. 2025a. Countering misogyny in the manosphere: Examining language, identity, and ideological confrontations in #MeToo narratives. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities 12(2). 219–236. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v12i2.29119.Search in Google Scholar
Jegede, O. O. 2025b. Exploring socio-cultural challenges in online movements. In R. Taiwo (ed.), Conflict and representation in online communication, 131–168. IGI Global Scientific Publishing.10.4018/979-8-3373-5297-8.ch005Search in Google Scholar
Jegede, O. O. 2025c. Humour as a pragmatic tool in multicultural online interactions. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 59(67). 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-025-09930-7.Search in Google Scholar
Katz, J. 2020. The masculine crisis: Men’s rights activism and its cultural impact. Gender & Society 34(3). 221–238.Search in Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. 2008. Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York: HarperCollins.Search in Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. 2017. Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. New York: Nation Books.Search in Google Scholar
Koller, V., A. Krendel & J. Aiston. 2023. The language of gender-based separatism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009216890Search in Google Scholar
Krendel, A. 2023. Self-help and masculinity: Speech acts in an online men’s group. Pragmatics and Society 14(6). 844–868. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21075.kre.Search in Google Scholar
Krendel, A., M. McGlashan & V. Koller. 2022. The representation of gendered social actors across five manosphere communities on Reddit. Corpora 17(2). 291–321. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2022.0257.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, J. 2017. Antifeminism online: MGTOW (men going their own way). In U. Frömming, S. Köhn, S. Fox & M. Terry (eds.), Digital environments: Ethnographic perspectives across global online and offline spaces, 77–96. New York: Columbia University Press.10.1515/9783839434970-007Search in Google Scholar
Marwick, A. E. & R. Caplan. 2018. Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies 18(4). 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568.Search in Google Scholar
McRobbie, A. 2008. The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Messner, M. A. 1997. Politics of masculinities: Men in movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Messner, M. A. 1998. The limits of ‘the male sex role’: An analysis of the men’s liberation and men’s rights movements’ discourse. Gender & Society 12(3). 255–276.10.1177/0891243298012003002Search in Google Scholar
Mukhopadhyay, A. 2022. The social and legal regulation of domestic violence in the Kesarwani community: Kolkata, India and beyond, 1st edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003283171-1Search in Google Scholar
Schmitz, R. & E. Kazyak. 2016. Masculinities in cyberspace: An analysis of portrayals of manhood in men’s rights activist websites. Social Sciences 5(2). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5020018.Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Stern, R. 2020. The manosphere and the rhetoric of male victimhood. Journal of Gender Studies 29(1). 34–48.Search in Google Scholar
Walby, S. 2009. Theories of gender equality: A global perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2007. Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Wright, D. 2020. The discursive construction of resistance to sex in an online community. Discourse, Context & Media 36. 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100402.Search in Google Scholar
Zempi, I. & J. Smith (eds.). 2021. Misogyny as hate crime, 1st edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003023722-101Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, D. & D. Scharff Peterson (eds.). 2023. International responses to gendered-based domestic violence: Gender-specific and socio-cultural approaches, 1st edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003264040-1Search in Google Scholar
Zuckerberg, D. 2018. Not all dead white men: Classics and misogyny in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674989801Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
