Misinformation | The 44 North

Five Truths on Not Buying into the Manosphere Bait and Switch

Jeff Perera
15 hours ago
5 min read

By Jeff Perera for The 44 North

Jeff Perera is a speaker, writer and facilitator who has delivered keynotes, talks and workshops for tens of thousands of people across North America and beyond about healthy versus harmful ideas of manhood, race and gender, masculinity, empathy-building, and men helping end gender-based violence.

"We can show one another that things can be different—things can be better. Healthier ideas of manhood don’t have to come at the expense of women and gender-expansive people… and they don’t have to come at our expense as men and boys either."

In this time we are living—where we hit the order button and immediately look at the tracking info because we want what we want and want it now—patience is scarce.

At the same time, many of us know that what matters most takes time to develop, build, grow, and nurture. The problem is: more and more of us feel we ain’t got time for all that, especially when our social media feeds are full of quick-fix solutions, crammed into 30-second video clips.

For many young men and boys today—desperately trying to find self-worth, self-identity, community, and connection—a quick fix seems like a no-brainer next to the long, hard road of self-work and self-care. What we must remember is that the need for answers and ways forward is more urgent and desperate for some young guys than others.

Truth #1: We Don’t Realize We’re Prey

Manosphere Influencers know this—seeking out young men struggling to stay afloat in the hostile waters online, hustling a way out of the darkness. They hawk male supremacy as the cure for what ails you, offering to teach you the ropes, and giving you the keys and tools to not only overcome but to dominate. Virtual father figures and big brothers who are always here for you (in a video or livestream) are at-the-ready to teach you how to ‘hunt.’ The problem is that these young men and boys don’t realize that they are prey.

It’s a bait and switch.

On the surface, these online male supremacist voices sell ‘freedom’ and suggest that people in progressive masculinity spaces and pro-feminist movements are just trying to restrain men. Skillfully playing the game of projection, they declare that social change types ‘just want to suppress and hold us back!’They will point and say:

“You can’t even tell a joke or have fun anymore!”

“They say that being a man is bad!”

“They don’t care about you and that you’re struggling, they just want you to care about women and trans people and everyone else BUT you!”

What they offer can feel like a lifejacket to these young guys who perceive that they are drowning in today’s stormy waters. Meanwhile, at the same time, they insist progressive spaces see you struggle but ‘just want to lecture you and make you soft and weak’.

Truth #2: Selling is not Saving

Manospshere influencers know that the moment someone is drowning is not the moment to teach them how to swim. This is the moment to ‘save them’. They offer a life jacket: community and connection with other young men also seeking dry solid ground; a quick short cut into identity, purpose and self-value.

Here’s the truth: I’m not selling you something to buy. I’m offering something for you to buy into.

Truth #3: Freedom is Not Restraint

Here’s another truth: The Bait and Switch they trick you with is Freedom vs. Restraint.

The manosphere is selling you Freedom, but what you end up with—what you end up in—is complete restraint.

When you think you’ve found identity, purpose, and community, you actually find yourself trapped in a hyper-limiting idea of who both you and then everyone else can be. The uniform of armour they offer you acts more like a straitjacket to keep you locked up within yourself.

‘A man only acts like this, likes these things, talks like this, dresses like this, feels like this, looks like this, is attracted to this…’

The beauty is: while they trap young guys in prisons made of harmful notions of what a man is or should be, the door is unlocked.

Voices inspiring young men to reject harmful notions of manhood aren’t trying to restrain guys, we are trying to help set each other free. True Freedom. We offer you a light to find your way ashore—a lighthouse to help you find a way back to yourself.We can show one another that things can be different—things can be better. Healthier ideas of manhood don’t have to come at the expense of women and gender-expansive people… and they don’t have to come at our expense as men and boys either.

Truth #4: In 'the Con', the First Person You Learn to Fool is Yourself

Another hard truth is that some young boys know manosphere influencers are full of it, but that’s what they admire about them: the act. They love how solid they are at the con, the grift. Most men are actors—we learn from an early age that we need to perform the version of ourselves that gains acceptance, respect, and even fear from our peers and others.

The pursuit of identity and worth via harmful portraits of manhood is all about the con, and the first person you learn to fool is yourself. And this is an act you must keep up your whole life—even when no one is in the room. At some point, this 24/7 performance will break you down.

The path forward as a guy isn’t easy, but you aren’t alone. People of all genders can support guys finding their way, but we need more men serving as lighthouses helping other men find their way in the dark waters of today.

Truth #5: To find the lighthouse we must believe we can be one

We can stop trying to fool others and ourselves. We can give each other permission, and offer ourselves the self-permission, to be authentic, to surface our full selves, and embrace our expansive humanity. Being a man can be about being assertive, as well as being in service of others. Being a man is about developing a truthful strength: to be what we believe and own the impact of our behaviour and actions. A life of continuously learning and unlearning. A model of possibility for one another. A lighthouse.

When we, as men, drop the performance and reject the con, we can create the space to embrace and value our humanity, and then also embrace and value the humanity of others. We help each other find a way out of the volatile and ruinous waters of the manosphere, and into a light we can become.

On Charlie Kirk: You Can't Pick and Choose Your Martyr

Abbigale Kernya
Nov 10
5 min read

By Abbigale Kernya for The 44 North

Managing Editor

"What began as a goal to further the reach of conservative ideology on college campuses evolved into a right-wing pipeline that grounded itself in exploiting marginalized communities and inciting violence against anyone who dared to call out the deplorable white supremacist behaviour."

On September 10th, 2025, American Conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at Utah Valley University on the first stop of his “Prove Me Wrong” campus tour. Kirk, who made his career founding Turning Point USA and debating college students on campus about controversial topics like abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender existence, and the right to bear arms, has left behind a legacy that continues to polarize and divide.

Kirk’s final words that afternoon perhaps speak most of all to his work, where he riled up the MAGA crowd in attendance—fearmongering about transgender gang violence—moments before he was fatally shot by a rifle 200 yards away. The suspect charged is 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, whose motives remain unknown at the time of writing, despite republican claims his actions were a blatant attack from the left.

It is without question that no matter Kirk’s controversial and bigoted stance, nobody ‘deserves’ to die by gun violence. This remains true, even after Kirk plainly stated in 2023 that he supported civilian casualties to protect and uphold the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The outcry following his assassination is as polarizing as it is frightening. Far right MAGA leaders are calling on violence towards the left (or, their “political opponents”) and conspiracy theories are headlining mainstream media, stating that this shooting was somehow a result of transgender violence—the same “violence” Kirk conspiratized seconds before the fatal shot.

And yet, on the same day Kirk was shot and killed on campus, an elementary school in Illinois was attacked by a lone gunman, marking the 146th American school shooting in 2025, as Kirk became the same “civilian casualty” he supported.

Kirk’s platform was built on oppression and harm to anyone who wasn’t a straight, white, Christian, middle-class American cis-male. It can be hard to feel empathy for someone who would not give you the same courtesy. Empathy, which, in Kirk’s own words, was seen as a made-up emotion.

Right-wing extremism has been rising steadily in America, bleeding the harmful rhetoric mainstreamed by people like Kirk into nearly every crevice of the West. When the news broke that Kirk had succumbed to his fatal shot, the response heard everywhere from the internet to sports venues was shocking, to say the least.

This is not to say that Kirk deserved what he got—nobody, no matter which side of the political line they stand on, deserves to be murdered in broad daylight. Nobody deserves to witness bloodshed, and in breaking down the hypocrisies of republican outcry, it is not a pro-firearm message. Rather, it’s one that aims to draw light toward the mass mourning of a white supremacist podcaster who made a career demonizing marginalized communities under the guise of “free speech” and the right to have your own opinion.

The irony of this whole situation is hidden under the calls for violence and continued “us vs. them” rhetoric, steeped in racist comparisons between Kirk and the murder of George Floyd, to further blame the left for his assassination. However, the argument that one must feel sorry for Kirk is somewhat missing the mark in this conversation. Especially given that Kirk himself advocated for public executions, saying they should be televised to children and sponsored by major corporations like Coca-Cola. It comes as somewhat ironic, then, that the conversation around his death is spiralling into that of a memorialized martyr who died for his own opinion, not one that aims to look at the broader picture of the violence he made a career out of.

Kirk’s advocacy for the right to one’s own “opinion” is a trapdoor that invites unsuspecting viewers through the guise of free speech into the chasm of extremist ideology. As a reminder, an opinion is whether or not you like summer over winter, or what TV show deserved an Emmy Award, or how you like your eggs cooked. An opinion is not whether or not you believe the Jim Crow laws were a good thing for the Black community, or that women aren’t capable of holding equal careers to men, or that transgender people are dangerous, bloodthirsty criminals. Charlie Kirk did not die for his opinion. He held no ‘opinions’ that were not factually incorrect or spewed in the pursuit of a divided country, fueled by hatred and fear.

His “Prove me Wrong” tour would be the final act in his legacy of rage-baiting college students into falling for the ultra-right-wing pipeline, spinning every disadvantage young people face into a calling card for bigotry and white-supremacy. It is extremely telling how school shootings and the rise of hate speech in North America have become so normalized that they’ve become desensitized to mainstream media. On the afternoon of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, when a man armed with a semi-automatic weapon opened fire in an elementary school in Illinois, the narrative instead became focused on protecting the legacy of someone who didn’t believe in equal rights based on “freedom of expression” rather than the epidemic of gun violence that is plaguing America.

The truth is, if people were truly outraged that this horrific act of gun violence cost Kirk his life, a conversation of change would spark. Instead, conversations around further demonizing left-leaning voters and the trans community have infiltrated online forums. Additionally, we’ve seen countless examples where anyone speaking out against the hypocrisy of Kirk’s shooting is facing harassment and, in increasingly frequent cases, being fired from their employment after speaking against Charlie Kirk's “opinions.”

How have we strayed so far from the plot that merely bringing attention to the hypocrisy and somewhat ironic nature of September 12th is an act of war against the right-wing? To say that you don’t support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but Charlie Kirk (by his own words) supported what happened to him, has become controversial—as if his platform was built around not only protecting the Second Amendment, but also advocating for looser gun restrictions.

How can one mourn Charlie Kirk and ignore the victims of his rhetoric?

What began as a goal to further the reach of conservative ideology on college campuses evolved into a right-wing pipeline that grounded itself in exploiting marginalized communities and inciting violence against anyone who dared to call out the deplorable white supremacist behaviour.

To truly mourn Charlie Kirk must mean you mourn all victims of gun violence.

To mourn him as a father, as a husband, is to also mourn the innocent families ripped apart by ICE raids.

To mourn him as a political activist for free speech is to also mourn the journalists murdered in Gaza who died documenting a genocide.

To mourn Charlie Kirk is to mourn victims of violence perpetuated with hands cradling guns and microphones.

To mourn him is to mourn trans people and childbearing folks who have died due to lack of access to gender affirming care and abortion resources.

You cannot pick and choose your martyr.

Reflections on the Sexual Assault Trial of Former World Junior Hockey Players: More Than Just a Few 'Bad Apples'

Gillian Smith-Clark
Nov 10
5 min read

Updated: 19 hours ago

by Gillian Smith-Clark

A blurry photo negative of five men in suits

"Layered underneath that fabric of an unhealthy masculine ideal is the broader objectification and commodification of women and gender expansive people, and a culture that too often confuses coercion with consent."

The exact number remains unverified, but a group of young men got the text from Michael McLeod to come to a London, Ontario hotel room that night. E.M. testified at trial that as many as eleven men were in the room over the course of the evening; the Crown’s argument stated that ten showed up. The trial record does not fix a single, undisputed number for how many got the text or how many were present in a way that all sides accept – what we do know is that there was a group text sent to multiple players: some responded, others didn’t. It has also been reported that McLeod, after having consensual sex with E.M., went out into the hallway of the hotel that night and invited more people into the room.

No one involved, as far as we know, recognized that this could be a situation where a young woman might need help, that she might have found herself in a situation she was not anticipating, might have felt blindsided – possibly scared and overwhelmed in an environment where her judgment was impaired by alcohol, was surrounded by men who were not only strangers to her, but physically intimidating.

There are so many lingering questions about both the events of that night and the subsequent trial and verdict – the lack of empathy by the judge and prevalence of victim blaming and shaming (e.g. Justice Carroccia’s petty and demeaning finding that E.M.’s evasive response to a mistake she had made about her weight was “telling,”) that was present both at trial and in the verdict; the noticeable absence of expert testimony on trauma; the gruelling nine days of testimony that E.M. was put through on the stand, a judicial system that seems incapable of handling sexual assault cases well and a 91-page final written decision that reeks of bias and internalized miso

gyny.

Further, a crucial and haunting question is: Out of those men who didn’t respond or participate, why did none question or intervene in any way? Reach out for help or advice from a friend, coach or parent? And by extension, how can we work as individuals and as a society to ensure that future outcomes, in similar situations, end differently?

The question of the young men who did nothing to help is one that immediately invokes a toxic mixture of strong emotions – sadness, fear, revulsion, anger, contempt – yet understanding the motivation behind the thought processes of the men involved can provide at least some insight into how to change behaviour, change culture, and offer a measure of hope for the future.

Understanding the ‘Why’

Beyond the bystander effect, fear of social consequences and moral disengagement, we live in a cultural landscape that often characterizes an ideal vision of masculinity as one of power, dominance, aggression, emotional suppression, and impulsivity. Pete Hegseth articulated this philosophy perfectly in a recent speech to U.S. generals, where he describes ideal leadership culture as defined by ‘aggressiveness and risk-taking.’ Hegseth went on to say, “[…] an entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that quote, our “diversity is our strength”.”

Layered underneath that fabric of an unhealthy masculine ideal is the broader objectification and commodification of women and gender expansive people, and a culture that too often confuses coercion with consent. Underneath that layer, at the base of everything, is a cultural foundation where boys are inundated from early childhood with the message that they must suppress and lock down their own emotions or risk rejection from those they depend on and love. Activist and writer Jeff Perera speaks about this phenomenon particularly well in a recent podcast episode for The 44 North, “Moving From Harmful to Helpful Ideas of Manhood” alongside his written companion essay, “Five Truths on Not Buying into the Manosphere Bait and Switch.”

The result, on that particular evening in London in 2018, was that the text received probably didn’t trigger any alarm bells or uneasiness because this type of behaviour is not only normalized but expected. And too often, it is still celebrated.

These were young, male, elite athletes who were raised in an environment where objectifying and commodifying women was so typical, so woven into the fabric of their society, that they didn’t see it as alarming – they probably didn’t see it at all. Therefore, there was no cause for alarm or an impulse to intervene.

One of the many unintended consequences of boys and young men being systematically taught emotional suppression (and often punished and shamed for certain types of emotional expression, e.g. ‘boys don’t cry’) from an early age, is that they also learn to subconsciously ‘switch off’ their feelings, the prerequisite for an ability to switch off cognition, critical thinking and their humanity in the moment. That foundational mechanism can allow an otherwise intelligent, kind, talented young human to ignore any alarm bells that might be sounding in their heads. This isn’t a case of ‘a few bad apples’, but a foundational problem requiring systemic change.

Taking Action: What makes a difference?

It starts with us. As individuals and as a society, we play a foundational role in shaping how boys and all genders understand masculinity — what it means to be a “good man,” how to express emotion, how to relate to others with empathy and respect, and how to take responsibility for our actions. Together, we can build a new vision of healthy masculinity — one that values wisdom, integrity, moral courage and thoughtfulness.

A simple place to start is by celebrating and recognizing the right qualities in all genders – by recognizing our own humanity so that we can see it in others – and by finding everyday role models who exhibit strength through emotional intelligence, compassion, and moderation.