Men Who Hate Women: From Incels to Pickup Artists: The Truth about Extreme Misogyny and How it Affects Us All

“The majority of men are good and kind and would never dream of committing such crimes. But that must not prevent us from recognizing those who do are not always acting in a vacuum.”

In this passage, Bates juxtaposes “good and kind” men with the acknowledgment of misogynistic behavior. This reflects her nuanced approach—she encourages her readers to understand the social systems that enable such behavior without alienating the entire male population. This balanced view underscores the complexity of misogyny’s roots and its widespread impact.

“[T]he only way [misogyny] can become so wildly, phenomenally successful , the only way it can be so cleverly camouflaged as to be almost undetectable, is if its arteries creep outward from that black heart of violent hate, wending their way through online pathways and webbing out across social media platforms, splitting and dividing into finer and finer capillaries, infiltrating chat rooms, reaching out through message boards, sniffing tentatively at the air and taking the leap out of the dank realms of the internet altogether, slithering offline, penetrating our pubs and bars and sliding around street corners, twirling delicately up the wooden legs of kitchen tables, peeping into corridors of power, burrowing into institutions and workplaces, fanning out tendrils across talk shows and newsrooms, taking deeper and deeper root until they’re part of the very fabric of our shared consciousness.”

Bates uses vivid imagery to describe the insidious spread of misogyny, likening it to a physical infection that quietly infiltrates all corners of society. The metaphor of “arteries creep[ing] outward” enhances the image of misogyny as a hidden, pervasive force that spreads unnoticed, subtly influencing both online spaces and offline institutions. This passage establishes the idea that the normalization of misogyny is a slow, deliberate process that eventually becomes a part of societal consciousness.

“Yes, some of the posts were extreme, and some of the replies were hostile and mean. But [the incel community] treated [Alex] like a compatriot. Against the man-hating world they portrayed, he was their brother-in-arms. He was one of them, with a cause to believe in and an enemy to fight. Over time, it became easier and easier to see that women really were the enemy.”

Bates uses the false identity of “Alex” as an example of how young, frustrated men can become indoctrinated into extreme ideologies—seduced by the sense of community and shared purpose these online spaces offer, violent misogyny becomes normalized and encouraged. Words like “compatriot” and “brother-in-arms” highlight the sense of belonging and camaraderie in these online spaces, which becomes a powerful force that convinces vulnerable men that they are united in a battle against a common enemy: women. The passage illustrates the manipulative nature of these online communities, where misogyny is not only normalized but portrayed as a righteous cause.

“As I swam through the murky depths of these communities, disguised as Alex, I realized that it isn’t even as simple as just saying that some group members are vulnerable victims and others are extreme misogynists. It is quite possible, common even, for individuals to be both.”

Bates sheds light on the complexity of the incel community, where members may be simultaneously be victims and perpetrators of misogyny. By describing the “murky depths” of these online spaces, she conveys the blurred lines between vulnerability and extremism, emphasizing that the influence of misogyny is insidious and affects both men who feel powerless and those who embrace its violence. The passage calls attention to the multifaceted nature of online radicalization.

“There is a trickle-down effect through these groups, whereby certain myths or prejudices that start as seeds on incel websites are incubated and nurtured through alt-right or Men’s Rights Activists’ networks before eventually filtering into the wider consciousness of mainstream society—a process that can be traced through the subsequent chapters of this book.”

Here, Bates outlines the interconnectedness of online misogynistic communities, showing how ideas spread from niche groups to mainstream society. The imagery of a “trickle-down effect” is effective in portraying the gradual infiltration of extremist ideologies into broader public discourse, emphasizing how dangerous, fringe beliefs can become normalized over time. This idea—The Spread of Misogynistic Ideals Through Online Communities—serves as the structural backbone of the book, illustrating how these ideas cross boundaries and permeate everyday life.

“As I spent hours poring through these posts, I realized just how much offline impact it can have when men are immersed in incel forums day in, day out. And I started to register just how many of the stories men told me about manifesting incel ideas in their daily lives echoed and matched the thousands of stories I receive every year from women who are being harassed, assaulted, and abused.”

Bates’s use of a personal, reflective tone provides anecdotal evidence for her ideas while emphasizing the connection between online misogyny and real-world violence. By juxtaposing the experiences of men who internalize incel ideology with the countless testimonies from women facing harassment and abuse, she highlights The Link Between Online Hate Speech and Real-Life Violence. This reinforces her argument that online spaces are not isolated from reality; instead, they fuel harmful behaviors that disproportionately harm women.

“On a daily basis, I might receive as many as one hundred Everyday Sexism Project entries and emails from women all over the world who are sick to death (or scared to death) of the endless, draining battle with sexual harassment in public places. So to suddenly uncover a vast online world in which men are being actively trained in these techniques is deeply dispiriting. But it rings true.”

Bates uses anecdotal evidence and a tone of frustration to illustrate the pervasive nature of sexual harassment. By referencing the overwhelming number of submissions to the Everyday Sexism Project, she emphasizes the scale of the issue. Her discovery of online communities that deliberately teach harassment tactics further underscores the connection between digital misogyny and real-world harm, reinforcing her argument that these spaces have a significant and dangerous societal impact.

“Valizadeh’s choice of words is telling. By referring to himself as a ‘scoundrel’, he very deliberately trades on the acceptable public face of pickup: the ‘charming rogue’ persona. It’s a convenient mask for somebody who has argued for the legalization of rape.”

Bates’s pointed language here exposes how figures like Valizadeh manipulate public perception. By adopting the persona of a “charming rogue,” Valizadeh masks the extremity of his views, making his harmful rhetoric appear less threatening. Bates highlights this rhetorical strategy to demonstrate how misogynistic figures often conceal their true intentions, making their dangerous ideologies more palatable to mainstream audiences.

“The implication of this is twofold: the only meaningful relationship with a woman must be a sexual one, and there are so many women ready to lie about rape that any contact with them is simply too dangerous to risk.”

This passage critiques the deeply ingrained misogyny within the manosphere. By exposing the manosphere’s belief that women are inherently deceitful and that sexual relationships are the only interactions of value, Bates highlights how these toxic ideas fuel distrust and hostility toward women. Through this analysis, she emphasizes that these narratives distort perceptions of gender relations, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and justifying the exclusion and mistreatment of women.

“Drawing on snippets of quotes and newspaper clippings, [MGTOW.COM] claims that MGTOW dates back to great men including […] ‘even Jesus Christ.’ (Suggesting that the son of God was primarily preoccupied with avoiding sexually deviant women seems like a bit of a stretch, particularly concerning his close friendship with Mary Magdalene, but that’s an argument for another day.)”

Bates uses humor and sarcasm as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of the manosphere’s claims. By mocking the notion that Jesus Christ was a proto-MGTOW figure, she emphasizes the group’s tendency to distort historical narratives to suit their misogynistic ideology. This satirical tone not only undermines the credibility of their arguments but also engages readers by encouraging them to critically question the logic behind these beliefs.

“The gap between the [MRA] community’s purported aim and its actual activities enables it to act as something of a conduit, smuggling some of the misogynistic ideas of the wider manosphere into the public eye behind a false shield of credibility.”

Bates uses the metaphor of a “conduit” to illustrate how Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) groups manipulate public perception. While they claim to advocate for legitimate issues facing men, their rhetoric often serves as a cover to normalize and spread misogynistic ideas. This critique emphasizes how harmful ideologies can infiltrate mainstream discourse when disguised as reasonable concerns, further perpetuating gender-based discrimination.

“Indeed, the MRM is acutely aware of the beneficial optics of deploying this very small minority of its members as prominently as possible to provide the appearance that their views are reasonable and not deeply misogynistic. How could they be if women agree with them too?”

Bates uses irony to highlight the strategic use of a small, select group of women in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) to lend credibility to misogynistic views. By showcasing these women, the MRM aims to create the illusion that their beliefs are valid and widely accepted, thereby deflecting criticism and making their misogyny appear more palatable. Bates exposes how the movement manipulates optics to gain mainstream acceptance while concealing its harmful core beliefs.

“It is easy to ridicule these groups, but the breadth of their support, the foothold they have carved out in the media and political landscape, and the gateway they provide for the beliefs of other manosphere groups to slide into the mainstream narrative, greased with a sheen of respectability, all suggest that this is not a movement we should be laughing off.”

Bates’s cautionary tone here emphasizes the dangerous normalization of misogynistic ideologies by these groups, urging readers not to dismiss them as fringe or laughable. Her word choice—“slide”—emphasizes the gradual, insidious manner in which these ideas make their way into the mainstream, while “greased with a sheen of respectability” is a metaphor that suggests that these harmful ideas are disguised or polished to seem more palatable.

“Receiving these messages day in, day out is like drowning in slow motion, but nobody else can see the water. And even if you try to tell them, they don’t understand.”

Bates uses vivid, emotional language to convey the overwhelming and isolating nature of the constant harassment women face, illustrating the mental and emotional toll of misogyny. The simile of “drowning in slow motion” emphasizes how the harassment is relentless yet invisible to those who are not experiencing it, highlighting the disconnect between the lived reality of women and the lack of empathy or understanding from others.

“In the same way, the manosphere calls for gender equality while indulging in extreme misogyny, demands transparency of statistics while spreading false facts, and portrays itself as the champion of downtrodden victims while espousing the creation of greater gains and protections for the group already most privileged in our society.”

Bates highlights the inherent contradictions within the manosphere, using irony to expose how its rhetoric is often deceptive and self-serving. By contrasting its supposed advocacy for equality with its underlying misogynistic ideology, she shows how the movement manipulates language and public perception to appear virtuous while perpetuating harm. This quote underscores the manosphere’s manipulative tactics.

“Unfortunately, the prevailing public notion of trolls as isolated pranksters hurling insults is pervasive enough to color societal judgment about how victims should react. ‘They’re just trying to scare you,’ a hundred people have told me after yet another email detailing the gruesome and bloody methods with which a man fantasizes about taking my body apart and molesting my corpse.”

In this quote, Bates challenges the common, dismissive perception of online trolls as mere pranksters by contrasting it with the horrific and violent reality of the harassment she faces. The stark contrast between the public’s trivialized understanding and the severe nature of the threats highlights the deep psychological and emotional toll on the victims. This quote argues against the normalization and minimization of misogynistic violence, showing how society’s dismissive attitudes allow such harmful behavior to persist unchecked.

“Men hurt women. It is a fact. It is an epidemic. It is a public health catastrophe. It is normal.”

In this quote, Bates uses anaphora—the repetition of “It is”—to drive home the gravity of violence against women, presenting it as an undeniable and recurring issue. This rhetorical strategy strengthens the argument by emphasizing the normalization of such violence, framing it as both an epidemic and a public health catastrophe. The repeated structure forces the reader to confront the harsh reality of the situation, urging reflection on the societal acceptance of misogyny.

“[Manosphere idols] encourage men to hold ever more tightly to outdated tropes of masculinity, suggesting that adherence to these tired and rigid constructs is a life raft when it is actually the very current dragging many men beneath the surface.”

Bates uses metaphor in this quote, contrasting rigid masculinity with a “life raft,” suggesting that men cling to outdated ideals under the false belief that these concepts will save them. This metaphor highlights the dangers of adhering to such stereotypes, framing them as a “current” that ultimately drags men down rather than offering support. By linking toxic masculinity to the destructive current, Bates critiques the harmful impact of these ideals on both men and women, building on the theme of The Impact of the Manosphere on Men and Boys.

“For these unofficial spokespeople, the manosphere represents a powerful force, whether boosting voter turnout, book sales, or viewing figures. And for manosphere communities, it elevates their rhetoric far beyond the online echo chambers, sneaking it into wider conversation.”

Here, Bates underscores how the manosphere community extends its reach from niche online spaces into broader public discourse. She illustrates how the manosphere’s influence operates in both subtle and impactful ways, infiltrating mainstream platforms under the guise of acceptable debate, and highlights how the movement leverages public visibility to legitimize its harmful rhetoric.

“The men at the top of the chain don’t need to gut the fish. They just need to hold out the bait and wait for a little nibble. People who are attracted enough to swallow the hook will find their own way down the rest of the line. And those holding the rod are able to capitalize handsomely, reeling in the benefits of their money, their online adoration, or their votes.”

In this passage, Bates uses a fishing metaphor to compare the manipulation of vulnerable men by those at the “top” of the manosphere hierarchy. By likening the process to “gutting the fish” and “holding out the bait,” she highlights the deceptive and passive methods used by manosphere leaders to draw vulnerable men in. The image of “reeling in the benefits” emphasizes how these leaders exploit followers for personal gain, whether financial, social, or political. This metaphor conveys the predatory nature of the manosphere’s influence, where followers are lured in and then exploited, without the top figures directly engaging in harmful actions themselves.

“What started out as hatred is subverted into something else: fear. Men who hate women make other men afraid of women.”

Bates employs juxtaposition in this quote to contrast hatred and fear, illustrating how misogyny evolves into a more complex emotion. By asserting that “hatred is subverted into something else,” she shows the transformation of the men’s original anger into a deeper, more pervasive fear. This shift is crucial in understanding the psychology behind the manosphere, where the men who hate women also instill a sense of fear about women in other men, leading them to view women as threats.

“And so hatred of women is ushered into young men’s belief systems without them even realizing that that’s what it is. It isn’t hating women; it’s standing up for men. It isn’t hating women; it’s asking for ‘real’ equality. It isn’t hating women; it’s accepting biological difference. It can’t be hating women if everybody is laughing about it online.”

Bates uses repetition to emphasize how misogyny is subtly ingrained into young men’s belief systems, often under the guise of other rationales. The phrase “It isn’t hating women; it’s…” is repeated several times to highlight the rationalizations that obscure the true nature of these beliefs. By juxtaposing these justifications with the undeniable fact of hatred, Bates shows how misogynistic rhetoric disguises itself as something more acceptable—such as “real equality” or a defense of “biological difference.” This rhetorical technique uncovers the insidious nature of the manosphere, making it clear that misogyny is often disguised and normalized in casual online spaces, allowing it to go unnoticed or unchallenged.

“Think of the manosphere like the Guinea worm. Its ideology, smuggled via other hosts, can infect you before you even realize it. Once inside, it spreads and grows, eventually causing great pain. In an attempt to ease that pain, hosts cause harm to others and accelerate wider infestation. And while only a small part of the problem is visible, a much greater portion lurks beneath the surface.”

The extended metaphor of the Guinea worm illustrates the stealthy and pervasive nature of the manosphere’s misogynistic ideology. Bates emphasizes how this toxic mindset can infiltrate individuals without them being aware of its harmful effects, just as the Guinea worm silently spreads in a host. This metaphor highlights how the ideology grows within people, causing internal pain, which then manifests in external harm as they perpetuate the misogynistic beliefs onto others. The comparison also reveals the unseen extent of the problem—while only a small portion of the manosphere’s influence is visible, the broader, more dangerous impact lies beneath the surface, infecting society in ways that are often unnoticed or underestimated.