Lancet Authors Urge Governments to Treat the 'Manosphere' as a Public Health Problem, Like Tobacco

A new paper in The Lancet, published today, Oct. 30, argues that the so-called manosphere should be handled the way governments handle tobacco and ultra-processed food: as a public health problem with commercial drivers.

The Viewpoint is titled "Reframing the manosphere: a public health response to a commercial ecosystem." Its authors are Sarah Hawkes, a global public health professor at University College London, and Kent Buse, a health policy professor at Monash University Malaysia. Both are co-founders of the think tank Global 50/50.

What the authors claim

The paper 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 say it has become a lucrative industry that profits from "the most extreme expressions of misogyny and aggrieved masculinity." They link it to social isolation, body image problems, reluctance among boys and men to seek mental health care, and a climate in which violence against women and girls is more readily accepted. Those links are the authors' assertions.

Buse put the business argument bluntly: "This is a business model, not a fringe. Outrage and grievance are good for business, so the system rewards the most extreme content."

Hawkes told BBC Radio 4 that people make "a lot of money" from this content, including by pushing boys and men toward financial schemes, unregulated supplements and hormones.

The pull is real, they say

The paper does not dismiss why boys end up there. Hawkes said: "The manosphere offers boys and young men belonging, identity and an explanation for why life feels hard. Those needs are real."

The authors point to boys disengaging from education worldwide, loneliness, money worries and social exclusion. They also note that men are over-represented in suicide and incarceration statistics, and that boys and men have unmet needs in health and social care.

Their conclusion is that taking content down is not enough. "A response that only removes the manosphere, without offering something credible in its place, will fail," Hawkes said. "We need to offer boys something better, not just tell them what to avoid."

What they want governments to do

The prescriptions are broad. The authors call for a coordinated effort across governments, schools, health services and community organisations.

On the social side, they list employment and skills programs, steps to re-engage boys in education, and "equitable access to mental health and other frontline health services" aimed at boys and young men.

On the regulatory side, they want platforms targeted rather than users. They compare it to banning tobacco advertising aimed at children rather than criminalising smokers. The paper calls for "strengthening existing content moderation to restrict harmful environments and harnessing the power of algorithms to promote positive messaging and norms."

They also advise against "framing masculinity as inherently toxic or boys and men as inherently problematic." Buse said the same: "Boys and men are not the problem. The problem is the conditions that leave them isolated and without a secure future, and the companies that profit from their anger and insecurity."

Free speech and the regulation fight

The authors anticipate resistance. The paper says content creators and hosting platforms, like the tobacco and ultra-processed food industries, "individualise responsibility," and that "efforts to regulate or moderate content are frequently framed as threats to men's autonomy." Buse predicts "the playbook that served tobacco so well: blame the individual, and call regulation an attack on freedom."

That is the authors' description of their opponents. The paper's own proposals, restricting "harmful environments" and steering algorithms toward "positive messaging," are the part that touches speech directly. Hawkes said that treating the issue as public health rather than only a regulatory one opens "a number of additional policy levers."

Mark Brooks, policy and communications director at the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys, welcomed the report's public health framing and its position that men, boys, women and girls are all victims of this content. He said the manosphere debate has too often "positioned all men and boys as a problem" instead of looking at wider economic and educational factors.

Open questions

The paper is a Viewpoint arguing for a policy approach. The authors did not name a specific law, agency or budget in their public statements.

The tobacco comparison carries a built-in tension. Tobacco is a product with a measurable physical harm. The manosphere is speech, ranging from fitness and dating advice to content the authors call misogynistic. The paper's answer is to regulate platform structures and advertising-style mechanics rather than individual speakers, but it leaves unsettled who decides which environments count as "harmful" and which messaging counts as "positive."

The less contentious parts may be easier to act on. Jobs, skills, school re-engagement and mental health access for boys are the paper's social-policy asks, and they cost money. Whether any government adopts the public health framing, and which of those costs it takes on, has not been announced.