Family lawyer says he's seeing a new trend of the 'manosphere' leading to divorce
"I'm kind of ashamed," the 23-year-old university student said. "I totally just listened to him, and then at the end, I was like, 'What am I doing? I don't know what I'm doing.'"
She first got involved in the long-distance relationship with an American military man a few years ago. She said the red flags began popping up six months in, when he began shaming her over her appearance, blowing up her phone if she didn't respond to his texts and expressing jealousy over her friendships with other men.
She realizes now she didn't see how his behaviour started affecting her.
"I got used to it. I got used to the condescension," she said.
She thinks the online content he consumed, such as "manosphere" creators like Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan, was part of what shaped his behaviour.
"He would make jokes about how many good points Andrew Tate has," she said, referring to the kickboxer turned controversial social media influencer, who describes himself as a misogynist.
When they broke up more than a year later, she felt only fleeting sadness.
"The next day I felt physically lighter and I was over it."
While Sproat got out of her relationship without headaches or paperwork, not everyone is so lucky.
WATCH | Misogynistic content is winning over married men and leading to divorces:
Family lawyer Scott Byers, who's based in Swift Current, Sask., said he and his colleagues have started seeing some of the factors Sproat described becoming a reason for divorce.
It started with the pandemic and couples having diverging views on things like vaccinations, but that's shifted more recently, Byers said.
"As the years have passed since the pandemic, I'm certainly seeing more clients come in telling me, 'My spouse isn't the person that I knew when [we] met. He puts his ear buds in and he's listening to these podcasts and a lot of thinkers associated with the so-called manosphere.'"
Byers said he believes online misogyny feeds a culture of coercion and abuse.
"It's a new and unsettling dynamic."
He said one woman he represented told him that her husband had been injured on the job and, unable to work, started spending more time online and consuming what Byers described as "radical ideas" about gender.
"He started to express views about how their children should be raised that my client just couldn't accept," he said.
Byers said these men often want to represent themselves during divorce proceedings, animated by a perception that the family court system is biased against husbands and fathers.
"They see this as the fight of their lives, and they're fighting the good fight on behalf of men and boys everywhere," he said.
Byers said this can make it hard to have practical discussions over important elements of a divorce, like child support and parenting schedules.
"Their head is just not there."
Neil Shyminsky, is a professor of English at Cambrian College in Sudbury, Ont., who has extensively studied the manosphere, describing it as "a misogynist movement that feels that feminism has won."
"Women have not just achieved equality, but now women are in the driver's seat and that this is wrong, and it is both natural and good for men to be in positions of power and leadership."
The manosphere, broadly, takes the view that men and women should return to what are seen as traditional roles, he said.
Influencers who operate in this sphere suggest, "the only thing that women are good for is sex and popping out babies or maybe picking up after you," he said.
When these online misogynistic trends began emerging a decade ago, it was really a movement of single men, Shyminsky said.
"The greatest predictor of somebody identifying as a member of the manosphere is that they've been rejected by a woman recently," he said.
He said it's surprising to see it gaining traction among married men.
"This is a sign that those tendrils of the manosphere that I was talking about earlier are just permeating deeper and deeper into spaces that are mostly populated by men."
Both Byers and Shyminsky see the manosphere as an issue driven by complex economic and societal problems, to which influencers offer simple solutions.
"The problem [in their view] is that men aren't men anymore. You got laid off from your job, because you are not manly, your boss is not [manly]. Maybe your boss is a woman," Shymisnky said.
"If we want to fix it, if we want to solve the problem, men just have to be men.… You gotta be that much more manly, that much more masculine. And that's when we slip into being toxically masculine."
Byers noted that he's not a relationship counsellor, but said he does have an unique view on relationships through seeing how they come apart.
He said couples may be able to get ahead of marital breakdown over misogyny by having honest conversations about what they're reading, watching and listening to online, and what they think about that content.
"If it's not enough to salvage that relationship, it would at least allow people to catch this at an earlier stage and make educated decisions about whether to stay and whether to go," Byers said.
As bad as her previous relationship became, Sproat hasn't given up on her belief that men can also be uplifting and positive forces for their female partners.
"I do wish that there weren't so many men who subscribed to the ideas of public figures like Andrew Tate and the manosphere weirdos, but there's lots that don't," she said.
Sproat feels like she can tell a lot about her "wonderful, amazing" current partner by his friendships. He and his closest friends are loyal people who help support their female partners' goals and want them to thrive, she said.
"There are good men. You just gotta find them."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
This Texas Democrat Gave The "Perfect Response" Explaining Why They Won't Back Down
Texas is trying to eliminate five Democratic House seats, and Texas Democrats have fled the state to stop the vote. Texas Governor Greg Abbott is threatening them with felony charges and removal from office, and on Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he would "Seek judicial orders declaring that runaway Democrats who fail to appear by the Speaker's deadline have vacated their office." We've been hearing from some of these so-called "runaway Democrats," like Representative Jolanda Jones from Houston. She went viral for calling out Gov. Abbott: "I'm a lawyer. Part of my practice is criminal defense work. There is no felony in the Texas penal code for what he says. Respectfully, he's making up some shit, okay?" And now, another Texas Dem is going viral for her "perfect" explanation about why they refuse to back down. When asked if they were "running away" from their jobs, Rep. Johnson responded with this: "Yeah, no, abandoning your job is going to Cancun in the middle of a deadly freeze, right? Abandoning your job is cutting health care when people need access. Abandoning your job is cutting public education when we already have one of the worst education systems in the nation." "What we are doing is the fundamental protection by our Founding Fathers in the Texas Constitution that says the minority party has the opportunity to break quorum when you know the majority has really gone off the rails." "The fact that Texas Republicans are willing to sell their soul, sell out their state, and sell out the American people to serve the interest of Donald Trump and give him 5 seats at a time when we know he is afraid of voters voting on his policies next November in 2026." "When Donald Trump called Georgia Republicans and said, 'I just need you to find me 11,000 votes,' they said, 'No, sir, that's a step too far.' But when he called Texas Republicans and said, 'I need you to steal me five seats,' they said, 'Does July work for you?'" "Well, it doesn't work for us as Texas Democrats. This is not just about our voters, it's about the nation. And it's important for people to know they have threatened us personally. They have threatened our arrest, they have threatened our jobs, they have threatened us. The solution is if we show up today at 3 o'clock and sit and be quiet, then we get to keep ours. But it kills the voice of everybody in this country. And so, we won't. We won't sit and shut up to have them shut up the voices of voters." People are eating up her response. "I'm liking this wave of no BS pushback. More of it pls" one person said. Another person said, "Real Texans don't bend the knee." And a BUNCH of people are just like "EXACTLY": "This is as perfect a response as you can get." Oh, and of course, the Ted Cruz thing was lol.


Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Rubio defends Latin American democracy — except when his allies land in hot water
Marco Rubio built his reputation in Miami and the U.S. Senate as a defender of democracy in Latin America, but now, as secretary of state under President Trump, his support for such values has become selective. Rubio and Trump are using America's might to interfere in another country's court system, trying to stop the prosecution of Trump ally and former right-wing Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for an alleged plot to overturn his electoral loss in 2022 and assassinate the current president. The U.S. has imposed 50% tariffs on the country's goods and sanctioned the Brazilian Supreme Court justice in charge of Bolsonaro's prosecution using the Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to sanction human rights abusers. Rubio wrote on X in July that 'judicial robes cannot protect you.' The Trump administration is treating Brazil as though it's a dictatorship like Cuba or Nicaragua. However, leftist President Luiz Inacio 'Lula' da Silva was elected in a democratic electoral system that's been functioning for 40 years, despite Bolsonaro's attempt to undermine it. The country also has an independent judicial system that, as in many countries, hasn't been immune to accusations of judicial overreach. Meanwhile, the Trump administration supports its ally in El Salvador consolidating power, despite warnings from international human rights organizations. The country's lawmakers last week changed the constitution to let President Nayib Bukele run indefinitely. Bukele remains popular for his war on crime, despite criticism that he's doing away with checks and balances and due process. He's also cracked down on human rights activists and threatened journalists, forcing some political exiles to flee El Salvador, the Associated Press reported. No one is surprised that Trump would look at Latin American policy in a transactional way, molding America's values to fit his needs. But Rubio spent a career acting as the purported voice for righteousness. Is he truly for democracy or merely for ensuring that right-wing leaders run countries in Latin America? Both the right and the left have created authoritarian regimes. And both have failed to call out autocrats from their side of the ideological aisle. The admiration by some Latin American leaders, including Brazil's Lula, for Fidel Castro, and their inability to properly call out Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro are just as problematic. The difference is that the U.S. is using its power to try to influence a criminal case in a democracy that's been an American ally. If Rubio is truly interested in democracy in Latin America, he also should speak up against Bolsonaro's attempt to discredit Brazil's 2022 electoral results and condemn Bolsonaro's supporters who, prodded by his baseless claims of a stolen election, invaded and vandalized government buildings in the country's capital in 2023. Some Bolsonaro supporters also camped out outside military headquarters asking for an intervention by the armed forces in the elections, in what would have amounted to a coup d'état like the one that started Brazil's 20-year dictatorship in 1964. Two years earlier, Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol because of a similar belief in a conspiracy theory about stolen elections. Now Trump and Rubio are preaching about democratic values? In July, when Trump threatened Brazil with 50% tariffs, he called Bolsonaro's trial a witch hunt that 'should not be taking place.' Then, the U.S. sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes for what Rubio described as 'serious human rights abuse' and attacking free speech. De Moraes has ordered some social media accounts to be shut down for publishing disinformation, prompting Trump's media company to sue him. He has imposed several pre-trial restrictions on Bolsonaro, including a curfew and 24-hour surveillance to prevent him from fleeing the country, according to the BBC. Most recently, de Moraes ordered Bolsonaro under house arrest for violating restrictions imposed on him by the Supreme Court as part of his criminal case, including use of social media and cell phones. His decision has been supported by some as defending the rule of law, but he has also been criticized. The editorial board of one of Brazil's largest papers criticized Bolsonaro's arrest, saying he has the right to free speech. The bigger question is why the U.S. is using its trade and diplomatic power to pressure another country to defend a Trump ally accused of terrible crimes. If Rubio is going to cast himself as a defender of democracy and human rights, then he should be consistent. Isadora Rangel is a member of the Herald Editorial Board.


The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
The US jailing and silencing of journalists follows the autocrat's playbook
American leaders have long condemned authoritarian regimes for jailing reporters like Khaled Mamdouh, an Egyptian journalist accused of 'publishing and broadcasting fake news,' among other fabricated charges. In his case, the Egyptian government continues to manipulate the law to detain him. Now, the U.S. government is using its own draconian methods to detain Mario Guevara. The Committee to Protect Journalists says that he is the only journalist in custody in the U.S. for actions related to newsgathering. On June 14, Guevara was arrested while live-streaming a protest near Atlanta. He was standing on a sidewalk when he briefly stepped onto the street, deemed off limits by police. Wearing a red shirt marked 'PRESS,' he identified himself to officers, saying, 'I'm a member of the media.' Though Guevara is authorized to be in the U.S. after fleeing El Salvador two decades ago, he was arrested, and promptly handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A judge granted him bond, but ICE refused to accept the $7,500 payment, shuffling Guevara through multiple jails in order to keep him locked up. He remains behind bars today. Guevara's arrest comes as President Trump is leading a sweeping, coordinated campaign to undermine press freedoms and dismantle First Amendment protections. Each week, the administration's attacks grow bolder, the consequences more devastating. The nation that once demanded press freedom abroad is denying it at home — and emboldening other governments that persecute the press. But this isn't just an attack on journalism. It's an assault on the very principles the First Amendment was designed to protect: free expression, an informed public and the right of every American to speak, learn and dissent without fear of government retaliation. For decades, Democratic and Republican administrations have used diplomacy to free journalists unjustly detained abroad. Just last year, former President Joe Biden welcomed Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich on the tarmac after the State Department secured his release from a Russian prison. Now the U.S. is traveling down the autocratic road paved by China, Russia, Egypt and other nations with long records of repressing journalism by seizing control of the White House press pool, sidelining independent outlets that hold leaders to account and elevating loyalist media to deflect scrutiny. With congressional backing, the Trump administration has defunded NPR and PBS and dismantled Voice of America, crippling outlets that amplify truth and democratic values. Trump sued The Wall Street Journal and then barred it from an overseas White House trip in retaliation for its reporting on ties to Jeffrey Epstein. He politicized the traditionally independent Federal Communications Commission, using it to target disfavored media outlets in pursuit of partisan goals. Meanwhile, corporate giants like Disney (ABC's parent company) and Paramount Global (CBS's parent company) offered millions of dollars to settle spurious lawsuits, capitulating to government intimidation and fueling the cycle of press freedom assaults. In Trump's second term, the message to media organizations is clear: Comply and be rewarded — the FCC approved Paramount's $8 billion merger just days after the settlement — or face punishment. The Trump administration is accelerating the erosion of First Amendment protections by targeting those who shine a light on stories he wants buried. Attacks on lawyers, judges, educators and civil society all come from the same authoritarian playbook. It's a coordinated, multi-pronged attack designed to fuel an information ecosystem where truth is replaced by state-approved narratives, and journalism is only prized if it serves power. As all of this unfolds, the public appears significantly less aware of Trump's assaults on the press than during his first term. In 2017, a Pew Research Center report early in his first presidency found 72 percent of U.S. adults had heard 'a lot' about Trump's relationship with the media, a number that was cut in half early in his second term. While skepticism toward the media has grown, public apathy is also driven by reduced exposure to traditional news. Professional journalists now compete with social media clips, YouTube personalities and partisan echo chambers. The collapse of local news is accelerating civic disengagement as news deserts spread. When a journalist like Guevara is unjustly detained, we lose stories that hold leaders accountable. When public broadcasters like NPR and PBS are defunded, rural communities lose trusted sources of information. The First Amendment invites scrutiny, which threatens this White House. The courts, Congress and corporations have shown little interest in constraining the administration. The burden now falls on the public. We must demand Guevara's release and reject the criminalization of journalism. We must support local news and defend credible reporting. Protecting press freedom isn't just about journalism, but safeguarding our own right to speak, dissent and know the truth. In Egypt, Mamdouh has entered his second year of pretrial detention. The question now is whether America will act to defend Guevara, or continue to fall in lockstep with nations it once condemned.