logo
Men v gorilla v the rest of us: Why masculinity contests go viral

Men v gorilla v the rest of us: Why masculinity contests go viral

NZ Herald04-05-2025

Jimmy 'MrBeast' Donaldson, a content creator who draws audiences in the hundreds of millions by staging elaborate stunts, joked on X: 'Need 100 men to test this, any volunteers?'
'Sure, what's the worst that could happen?' X owner Elon Musk replied.
Men v gorilla isn't the first debate about men's abilities – and limits – to blow up online. In 2019, Twitter ground to a halt to discuss whether an untrained man could beat a women's tennis professional like Serena Williams in a match. To the horror of athletes and experts, many thought they could. In 2023, a YouGov survey trended after it found many men without flying experience believe they could successfully land a passenger plane.
These viral hypotheticals have something in common, according to social scientists. All of them ask whether men could maintain dominance and control against incredible odds. You won't find viral memes asking whether men could collaborate with a gorilla – or whether women could do any of the above.
A preoccupation with battling gorillas, which can weigh 500 pounds, might reflect an absurd overconfidence on the part of human men, said Samuel Perry, a sociology professor at the University of Oklahoma who studies the connection between masculinity and ideology. But it more likely reflects a deeper insecurity, he noted.
Research increasingly indicates young men today fare worse than past generations in terms of educational achievement, employment and romantic relationships, Perry said. Combine that with the growing cultural and financial power of women and gender-non-conforming people, and you get a world where men are increasingly anxious about their place in society. According to Pew Research data from 2024, 31% of Republican men believe women's advancement in society has come at the expense of men. Some research, meanwhile, suggests men might behave more aggressively when they feel their masculinity has been threatened.
'This runaway meme of men fighting a gorilla and all of the similar memes that we've seen over the years, I think they land in the fertile soil of young men who are quite insecure in their masculinity,' Perry said.
A cultural reckoning with masculinity fuels more than trending memes, said Theresa Vescio, a psychology professor at Pennsylvania State University who studies gender and power. If gorilla fights are the tip of the iceberg, there's a larger battle swirling underneath, according to Vescio.
Online spaces, specifically for young men, have seen their influence balloon in recent years. Leading up to the 2024 presidential election, for instance, Donald Trump's social media team arranged appearances for him on a variety of podcasts and video shows with hosts that promote traditional views of masculinity. The strategy paid off, Trump strategists said: men between the ages of 18 and 29 shifted drastically rightward since 2020, network exit polls indicated.
Some of the biggest boosts to the online gorilla debate came from male conservative commentators and creators with largely male audiences, including Donaldson, Musk, Walsh and the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) YouTube channel. It shows how quickly and broadly the so-called manosphere, like other powerful online networks, can disseminate information, said Jacob Johanssen, an associate professor at St. Mary's University at Twickenham who wrote a widely-cited 2021 book on the topic.
Much of the gorilla debate was lighthearted. But some onlookers still felt uneasy. Emma Gray, co-creator of the culture newsletter Rich Text, said she struggled to find comparable memes about women's strength and abilities. The closest thing she could think of was a trend from last year in which women debated whether they'd rather run into a man or a bear when alone in the woods.
'For men, viral debates are about estimating their own skills,' Gray said. 'For women, it's trying to assess what's dangerous to our safety. I think that tells us a lot about the state of gender at this moment.'
Hillary Lucas, a 47-year-old from Tennessee, watched the debate play out all week as she scrolled through TikTok, Facebook and X. She felt exasperated, she said.
'There's so much happening right now – breaking news, executive orders, attacks on women's reproductive rights – and these guys just want to fight a gorilla,' she said.
Not so fast, though, said Tara Stoinski, a gorilla expert and president and chief scientific officer of the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. Male gorillas may be big, strong and aggressive in some circumstances, Stoinski said, but at the end of the day they are gentle creatures who enjoy spending time with their families. Our fascination with battling them to the death may say more about us than it does about them.
'Gorillas form life-long friendships,' Stoinski said. 'They mourn the loss of family members, and they take care of their most vulnerable.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Phil Robertson, reality television star of Duck Dynasty, dies at 79
Phil Robertson, reality television star of Duck Dynasty, dies at 79

NZ Herald

time27-05-2025

  • NZ Herald

Phil Robertson, reality television star of Duck Dynasty, dies at 79

The series catapulted Robertson and his brand of rural masculinity on to the national stage, attracting millions of viewers and catching the attention and support of conservative Republican political figures such as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. The show's fourth season premiere drew nearly 12 million viewers in 2013, making it the most watched cable show in history at that time, according to Rolling Stone. Robertson also frequently generated controversy with offensive remarks on social issues. That same year, the self-proclaimed 'Bible thumper' was briefly suspended from the show after he talked about homosexuality as a sin and compared bisexuality and promiscuity to 'bestiality' in an interview with GQ. He also downplayed the era of racial segregation, claiming he had never seen 'the mistreatment of any Black person' when growing up. 'They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues,' he said. The Robertson family at the time said that despite Phil's 'coarse' language, he was just expressing the teachings of his faith. Palin rallied to Robertson's defence, arguing that the backlash he had faced amounted to an attack on free speech. 'Those 'intolerants' hatin' and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us,' she wrote in a post on social media. Days later, video resurfaced of him speaking at an event in 2009 in which he advised girls to marry at 15 or 16 years old. While some die-hard fans remained loyal to the show, ratings fell steadily, and its final episode aired in 2017. A&E has announced it will revive the show in June, with a focus on the next generation of Robertsons. The programme will follow Robertson's son Willie, his wife, Korie, and their growing family of adult children and grandchildren as they map out the future of the hunting-goods business. In a second career as a speaker on the Christian circuit, Robertson amassed a large following among conservative evangelicals. He urged the Republican Party to 'get godly' in a 2014 speech, lamenting how far America had strayed from the Founding Fathers' vision of religion's role in government. In an interview with Fox News in 2019, Robertson spoke about the importance of religion to his life. 'I looked up one day and said, 'Man, I'm driven to do this. I have to do this',' he said, recalling the moment he said he discovered his faith at the age of 28. In interviews, his wife has described Robertson's religious conversion as a transformational moment for their marriage – ending a tumultuous chapter in his life of alcohol abuse. His books, written with Mark Schlabach, included a memoir, Happy, Happy, Happy, and UnPHILtered, detailing his philosophy on life and liberty. Robertson hosted a podcast, Unashamed, with sons Jase and Al. In 2016, Robertson endorsed Republican presidential candidate Cruz, releasing a video that asked, in part, which of the candidates could make a good duck gumbo. 'He's the man for the job, and he will go duck hunting,' Robertson said of Cruz in the spot, which featured the two men hunting ducks together. In the 2019 interview, Robertson said the unlikely odds of his success only affirmed his faith. 'What are the odds? We're down on the riverbank. I'm fishing the river, and I made a duck call that sounded like a duck,' he recalled. 'They bought 'em, and they bought 'em and they bought 'em. We look up, and here's a bus from New York City, A&E, and they pitched a thing about a TV show,' he said.

If you take anything online seriously, the joke's on you
If you take anything online seriously, the joke's on you

The Spinoff

time25-05-2025

  • The Spinoff

If you take anything online seriously, the joke's on you

Some quick thoughts on bait, not getting it, and the new online divide. This article was first published on Madeleine Holden's self-titled Substack. I am to internet culture what a recently released prisoner is to the outside world. The prisoner in this analogy did three years inside. From the late 2000s until 2022, I was a heavy user of social media, especially Twitter in the 2010s. My finger was on the pulse of online culture; I 'got it'; I was even something of a mover and shaker. I quit it all in April 2022, pregnant and eager to avoid brain-rot motherhood. My Twitter, Instagram and Facebook lay fallow for three disciplined, grass-touching years. In 2025, I returned to promote the godforsaken newsletter in which this piece first appeared. It's difficult for a free man to notice how the outside world shifts in the space of three years, but for the recently released prisoner, the change is like a slap in the face. Here's what's slapping my face online lately: the bait. I'm sure you're familiar with 'engagement bait' and 'rage bait' and their proliferation online, but you may not be acutely attuned to how they've morphed in three short years. When I quit social media in April 2022, X was Twitter and still had some ability to shape important conversations; Instagram and Facebook were usable, if boring; and ChatGPT wasn't in the hands of the everyman. Online was bad because of the 'attention economy', not because of 'slop'. Bursting back on the scene in the slop era is an insane experience. The website formerly known as Twitter has gone dark in every sense of the term, from the user interface to the bleak affective experience of using it. We are all served some slightly different mess from the bucket, of course, so here's what my trough looks like on X: fandom minutiae concerning celebrities I've never once cared about, Tesla ads, aspirational before-and-after photos of gender transitions (I'm not trans), explainer videos about pressing topics like whether Rumi Carter is autistic, and softcore porn. All of this comes from accounts I don't follow, which dominate my feed and – this is a new one – notifications. So far so tedious, but this is not really what I mean by bait. This is all sincere and straightforward, lowest-common-denominator entertainment: naked bodies, celebrity gossip and the now familiar capital-D Discourse. The bait I'm talking about fucks with you more, is post-post-ironic, requires intense online savvy to parse, and involves an element of deception. Here's an example: Here's what's happening in this post if you take it at face value: a woman has shared a picture of a random man's bedroom while he's on the toilet, the implication being that she's back at his place to hook up after a date. She's scanning his room for red and green flags and inviting her X following to join her, and everyone does: Tao Lin on the bookshelf, get out; unframed Malcolm X poster, cringe; Bar Italia, 🔥🔥🔥; natural deodorant, debatable. If you think this is an invasion of privacy, if you think this says something concerning about gen Z's dating ethics or the gender wars or something, [BUZZER NOISE] you don't get it. The woman who posted this picture is in a relationship with the guy whose bedroom it is, and he's in on the joke. 'you should get off your phone and stop invading the mans privacy you freak bitch', one user responded, echoing my initial gut feeling exactly, to which the boyfriend replied, 'Hey it's a joke and it's my gf and my room.' Here's one more example then I'll get to the point: Here's what's happening in this post if you take it at face value: two young women are filming themselves shopping at a discount store when a dowdy weirdo grabs their phone and starts lecturing them incoherently about objectification and commodity fetishism. Was the dowdy weirdo in the wrong? Did she have a point? [BUZZER NOISE] you idiot, you absolute idiot, it's all fake, everything online is fake. A lot of people got off the internet around the same time I did. You will have seen the thousands of 'Here's why I'm quitting Twitter' or 'My year without social media' stories. (I wrote one.) Many of us were millennials, and that made sense: we were the guinea pigs for each social media experiment so our brains rotted first. Now we're collectively grappling with how to salvage them. We have to: we're in our 30s and 40s, forming families and realising four-plus daily hours of Instagram is incompatible with raising well-adjusted kids or any other mature endeavour. But since we announced our grass-touching sabbaticals in the early 2020s, a lot of us have slunk back online and found it not quite the same as we left it; back in the mix with people who never logged off. Savvy, cynical, permanently online people. People who don't care whether content is staged or 'real'. People who can't be lured into Chicken Licken panics by well-hidden bait. People who feel (or will admit to feeling) only amusement or indifference to the things they see online. People who can digest slop. It's tempting to frame this as an old/young or millennial/gen Z divide, and that's part of it, but it's really a question of temperament: can you tell when someone's trying to get a rise out of you? Can you tolerate or even enjoy the sloppified internet, or does it make you lose your mind? Does the breakdown of truth and meaning have you rocking in a corner or hollering out the sunroof? Who do you think needs to get a grip: shitposters and engagement farmers, or the people who take them seriously? Every lifestyle journalist worth their salt knows these binaries need names, and I think it's important to caricature and insult both camps, so I'm going with 'Lickens' versus 'Pigs'. Lickens take things at face value; fall for bait and feel betrayed by it; believe in the value of truth and meaning; and kinda do honestly believe the internet is making the sky fall. Pigs take nothing online seriously; gobble down their slop with resigned indifference; step around bait the same way you avoid dogshit on the footpath; and never log off. Tag yourself, as we used to say back when my finger was nearer the pulse. Or test yourself: do you care who owns TikTok? Does the orange test annoy or concern you? Do you think Adolescence should be shown in schools? Do you feel comfortable taking a sincere stand on a moral or political issue using your real name online? Yes = Licken. No = Pig. The whole internet seems to be siloing off along these temperamental lines. You cannot survive X today without a Pig disposition. Substack is a haven for Lickens. I've never been on Bluesky or TikTok and I never will, but they seem Licken and Pig respectively. All traditional news media is Licken. 4Chan was peak Pig; Tumblr peak Licken. Allow me to don my tinfoil hat and prophesise wildly. Lickens and Pigs are going to become mutually incomprehensible enemies. Global politics will fracture even more deeply, not along gender or class lines but according to the Licken/Pig divide. There'll be Pig states and Licken states. Licken MPs will pass urgent legislation to counter whatever Pig rark-up is doing the rounds online. Shitposting Pigs will be rounded up and thrown into vans. Shady businessmen and corrupt politicians will have their schemes exposed by journalists; all they'll need to do to get Pigs onside is say they committed to the bit. All of this will be [cash register noise] for social media companies, our real and eternal rulers. This will all be very bad, or maybe very good. Crazed Lickens might be pushed to the brink and usher in an anti-tech revolution. Or maybe the cool cynicism of the Pigs will teach everyone a valuable lesson: the internet was never real. The joke was on anyone who thought it was.

Prince Harry's popularity sinks after BBC interview attacking King
Prince Harry's popularity sinks after BBC interview attacking King

NZ Herald

time15-05-2025

  • NZ Herald

Prince Harry's popularity sinks after BBC interview attacking King

He insisted he wanted to reconcile with his family but admitted that his father would not speak to him and that he did not know how much longer the King had to live. The Duke described the long-running legal battle, during which he argued that he had been singled out for 'unjustified and inferior treatment' when he was denied the right to automatic police protection, as a 'good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up'. He claimed there was 'a lot of control and ability' in his father's hands, adding: 'Ultimately, this whole thing could be resolved through him. Not necessarily by intervening but by stepping aside, allowing the experts to do what is necessary.' The Duke was once one of the most popular members of the Royal family, boasting an 80% approval rating in 2011. But public support fell away after he moved abroad in a blaze of acrimony. The slew of revelations and allegations made about his family – from the March 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview to the release of his memoir, Spare, in January 2023 – have seen his ratings plunge further. They reached their lowest, 24%, days after the memoir was published. The Duchess's highest approval rating of 55% came in October 2019, shortly after a tour of southern Africa, but, since then, her popularity has ebbed away. Meanwhile, more than six in 10 Britons have a positive view of the King, representing a slight drop since February. Whereas younger people tend to skew slightly more in favour of the Sussexes, older generations report a more favourable view of the King. The Duke may take comfort from the fact he is more popular in the US, the country he now calls home, than the UK. However, a YouGov poll published earlier this week found that he was less popular among Americans than his elder brother, Prince William. Fifty-six per cent said they had a 'very' or 'fairly' positive view of Prince Harry and 21% a 'fairly' or 'very' negative opinion. Sixty-three per cent gave Prince William a positive rating and 10% a negative one. Americans also reported a more favourable view of the Princess of Wales (49% positive) and the King (48% positive) than of the Duchess of Sussex (41% positive). The royals with the worst image in America were the Queen and Prince Andrew, while by far the most popular royals in the United States remained the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and Elizabeth II.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store