Introduction
When we watch the rise of 'alpha-male' influencers, it is easy to point the finger at 'toxic masculinity' and move on. But what if the Manosphere is not the cause of our cultural friction, but a symptom of a deeper imbalance?
This essay explores the reinforcing feedback loop between the Masculine and Feminine shadows—from patriarchal overreach to maternalistic overreach —and asks how we might move from a state of moral reactivity to a more conscious process of integration and harmony.
Watching the Manosphere
Many people have been watching The Manosphere on Netflix, a TV show created by Louis Theroux about a group of alpha-male influencers who provide content about fitness, business, and self-improvement.
As I watched it, I found myself sitting with a mixed response. On one level, what was being shown was confronting—young men speaking about women in ways that felt crude, at times disrespectful, even dehumanising. There were moments that were sad to watch, not just because of what was being said, but because of what seemed to be missing — love and respect for the feminine.
And yet, alongside that, I could also recognise something else. I could see the drive in these men. The desire to become successful, to become empowered, to take direction in their lives. That part made sense. It spoke to something real in the Masculine—the impulse toward purpose, structure, and achievement.
Rather than dismiss or condemn what I was seeing, I found myself becoming curious:
What is actually going on here?
We’re also seeing parallel conversations emerging in other spaces—through shows like Adolescence—and across wider cultural discourse, where questions around masculinity, identity, and belonging are becoming more visible and more charged.
It would be easy to point the finger—to label this “toxic masculinity” and move on. But something about that felt cursory and incomplete.
What is the wider context shaping this?
When we only focus on the behaviour, we miss the wound beneath it. What appears on the surface as arrogance, entitlement, or disrespect is often covering something far more human. If we look more deeply, what emerges is not just a story about men—but about the relationship between the Masculine and the Feminine itself. A relationship that, in many ways, has lost its balance.
The Masculine Shadow
Many young men today feel disenchanted and disconnected. Without a clear sense of direction or belonging, they are drawn to strong, hyper-masculine figures—individuals who offer certainty, status, and a clear path forward. This pattern is increasingly reflected in broader data on male wellbeing, where emotional disconnection is associated with higher rates of isolation, depression, and suicide (Office for National Statistics [ONS], 2023; Mental Health Foundation, 2023).
In that sense, their desire to become successful, to feel empowered, to take direction in their lives makes complete sense. But when the masculine becomes cut off from the feminine, it doesn’t become more powerful—it becomes more rigid. It loses its capacity to feel, to relate, to generate meaning—and replaces it with dominance and control (Brown 2012). It dismisses emotion as weakness, overrides rather than listens, and pursues power without regard for impact.
At a broader level, this disconnection has not only been psychological, but systemic. Over time, aspects of the Masculine shadow have shaped cultural and institutional structures that prioritised control, hierarchy, and productivity (Hooks, 2004)—often at the expense of freedom, equality, and empathy. What begins as an inner imbalance becomes built into society itself—shaping how power, value, and voice are organised.
The Rise of Feminine Polarities
Feminism has provided profound and necessary contributions in response to this.
The first wave of Feminism in the late 19th and early 20th century was rooted in very real injustices—women were denied the right to vote, to own property independently, and to participate fully in civic life. Movements such as the suffragettes in the UK, led by Emmeline Pankhurst, fought tirelessly—often at great personal cost—to secure these fundamental rights, culminating in milestones like the Representation of the People Act 1918 (UK Parliament, 2023).
The second wave, emerging in the 1960s and 70s, expanded this further into cultural and economic life—challenging workplace inequality, limited career access, and restrictive social roles. Legislation such as the Equal Pay Act 1970 reflected a growing recognition that equality was not only legal, but structural and societal (UK Government, 1970).
These movements were grounded responses to lived inequality and played a crucial role in restoring dignity, opportunity, and voice. It arose, in part, as a response to patriarchal imbalance that over-prioritised structure over empathy, thinking over feeling, doing over being. This rebalancing affirmed that Feminine values are not secondary to Masculine ones but equally fundamental—and required our legal, societal, and ethical frameworks to evolve accordingly.
In recent decades, there has been continued emphasis on elevating and empowering the Feminine across many areas of life. This has contributed to a more tolerant, inclusive, relationally aware, and emotionally intelligent society.
As with any polarity, the shadow of the Feminine has always been present as well—and in some modern expressions, it has become more visible.
The Feminine Shadow
A deeper Feminine shadow is emerging—one shaped by unresolved resentment and, at times, hostility toward both healthy and unhealthy Masculine expressions.
Rather than engaging the Masculine through clear boundary-setting or direct communication, it can manifest through what evolutionary psychologist Joyce Benenson (2014) describes as relational (or passive) aggression—the strategic use of social exclusion, shaming, and reputational undermining to regulate behaviour.
These patterns are not exclusive to women, but expressions of the Feminine archetype when it becomes cut off from the Masculine.
In some cultural and educational contexts, this can manifest in the form of social correctness or perceived progress. What begins as a sincere effort to protect using inclusive language can mutate into a mechanism of conformity, where traditional roles are pathologised and dissent is silenced through moral positioning.
This dynamic reflects what Jung (1959/1968) and von Franz (1970) described symbolically as the Devouring Mother—a distorted expression of the feminine that protects so much it begins to restrict autonomy. When the Masculine energy is met only by the Feminine Shadow that seeks to control through "maternalistic overreach"—it will naturally retreat into a defensive, hyper-rigid posture. They may withdraw from mainstream spaces and seek alternative frameworks that offer clarity, direction, and recognition.
In this light, the rise of the Manosphere is not random—it can be understood, in part, as a reaction to a cultural environment where some men feel judged, cancelled or shamed.
The Reinforcing Polarity Loop
Men are struggling. In the UK, around 75% of suicides are men (ONS, 2023). Men are significantly less likely to seek psychological support and more likely to suffer in silence (Mental Health Foundation, 2023). Increasing numbers of young men are not in education, employment, or training, and report a lack of meaning, direction, and belonging (UK Government, 2023; Reeves, 2022). Many report higher levels of loneliness, fewer close friendships, and difficulty forming intimate relationships (Reeves, 2022). In this environment, some withdraw. Others overcompensate. Some retreat into isolation—through gaming, online worlds, or financial speculation. Others adopt exaggerated forms of masculinity in an attempt to reclaim direction and certainty.
This is what happens when the Masculine and Feminine—within us and between us—lose their relationship.
Over the past 30 years, cultural movements have challenged traditional structures and binary frameworks (often described as the Patriarchy)—particularly around identity, gender, and truth itself. This has opened important space for inclusion and questioning rigid roles. But in some expressions, it has swung to the other extreme. Rather than integrating difference, it collapses it. The binary is no longer refined—but rejected. Structure is no longer balanced—but dissolved. And without structure, orientation is lost.
When everything becomes fluid, the ability to choose—or to stand—begins to disappear. What was once too rigid becomes too diffuse. And the middle ground—where nature and nurture, masculine and feminine, structure and fluidity coexist—is lost.
What emerges is not resolution, but polarisation—not integration, but escalation. What we are witnessing is not two opposing forces—but a polarity pair that has fractured. Each reacting, each reinforcing the other. It becomes an invitation to investigate the deeper shadows within both patriarchy and matriarchy—so a healthier balance can emerge.
The more the feminine expresses through indirect control, social pressure, or overcorrection, the more the masculine retreats into defensiveness, rigidity, and use of force. Conversely, the more the masculine becomes crude or dominating, the more the feminine feels justified in its resistance, critique, or shaming.
These shadows are interdependent and self-reinforcing. And as this happens, the centre shifts.
Bridging Polarities
So rather than seeing this as “toxic masculinity” on one side and “radical feminism” on the other, it is more accurate to see both as distorted expressions of something that has lost its centre.
The word toxic implies something inherently poisonous—something to be rejected. But distorted suggests something natural that has lost balance—and therefore can be restored. And that distinction matters. Because it moves us out of blame, and into responsibility.
The focus now shifts to reconnecting the Masculine and the Feminine.
This can be done by integrating polarity tensions in everyday life that are fragmented, irrespective of one’s gender.
taking action (giving) vs letting go (receiving)
setting boundaries (protecting) vs building intimacy (empathising)
thinking (enlightening) vs feeling (embodying)
These are not opposites to eliminate—they are complementary forces to integrate.
The conflict we see out there often reflects something unresolved within us.
They do not only exist between men and women. They exist within each of us. Masculine and feminine are not fixed identities, but living principles within the human experience. While biology may incline us toward one expression more than another, it does not confine us.
The Masculine—clarity, active, boundaries
The Feminine—depth, receptive, connection.
Both are available to everyone. The work is not to assign them. It is to embody them consciously.
And yet, culturally, we remain caught between two extremes.
One that rigidly assigns roles.
Another that collapses biological difference entirely.
Perhaps there is a middle ground. Where individuals are free to choose their roles—while recognising that biology may influence tendencies without determining them. Not as a rule. But as a reality to be integrated.
The crisis is not masculinity or feminism—it is the disconnection between them.
And until that disconnection is addressed, both will continue to distort. Until then, the cycle continues—regardless of which side believes it is right.
Doing the Inner Work
Perhaps the deeper truth is this: the conflict we see out there reflects something unresolved in here.
Because the real work is not ideological. It is psychological, energetic, and relational.
It asks us to look at where we have rejected the other pole within ourselves. Where we have hardened. Where we have resented. Where we have disconnected.
This is not typically easy work. It requires us to surrender the ego payoff of being right.
But it is where something begins to shift.
Because when the Masculine and Feminine come back into relationship within us, the need to fight them outside of us begins to dissolve.
And from there, a different possibility emerges.
Not masculine over feminine. Not feminine over masculine. But a conscious, integrated, and harmonious relationship between the two.
Within us. And between us.
______
References:
Benenson, J. F. (2014). Warriors and worriers: The survival of the sexes. Oxford University Press.
Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly. Gotham Books.
Hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press.
Jung, C. G. (1968). The archetypes and the collective unconscious (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1959).
Mental Health Foundation. (2023). Men and women: Statistics. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk
Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2023). Suicides in England and Wales. https://www.ons.gov.uk
Paglia, C. (1990). Sexual personae. Yale University Press.
Reeves, R. V. (2022). Of boys and men. Brookings Institution Press.
Sommers, C. H. (1994). Who stole feminism? Simon & Schuster.
UK Government. (1970). Equal Pay Act 1970. https://www.legislation.gov.uk
UK Government. (2023). NEET statistics. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk
UK Parliament. (2023). Women’s suffrage. https://www.parliament.uk
Von Franz, M.-L. (1970). The feminine in fairy tales. Spring Publications.