I'm implying that Trump is the paragon manosphere avatar, and his administration is filled with little versions of him. The purpose of the entire administration is to challenge incumbent government apparatuses (it opened with DOGE which broadly did precisely that, they reoriented the DoD from defense to committing war crimes, they took over DOJ and turned it into a personal law firm for Trump, etc.) for the benefit of Trump.
The men in his cabinet like Hegseth and Kennedy try to appeal to the testosterone laden (and deficient) crowd. Women like Bondi and Noem also tried their best manosphere impression, but of course in classic manosphere fashion, both women were booted out of the cabinet first.
To the extent that the military believes, as its leader does, that they are not operating under "stupid" rules of engagement, and their purpose is "maximum lethality" with a policy of "no quarter" for adversaries, the US Military is currently a defacto manosphere army.
In your view, what would a manosphere leader legitimately challenging an incumbent government apparatus look like?
You have completely confused manosphere and far-right authoritarians in your mind.
The manosphere movement is about fighting misandry, for men's rights, and, to be a little reductionist - how to get laid easily and avoid committing resources to women. It's basically the fan club of Andrew Tate and the likes. They are not competent or resourceful enough to take control of a government.
There's an overlap in the venn diagram, sure. But it's much smaller than what you think it is.
No my friend, it is you who have the manosphere confused. Because the manosphere is not a sphere at all but a pipeline to right wing authoritarianism. It's not separate and apart from far right authoritarianism, it's what creates far right authoritarianism. It starts with the "fight misandry" and "men's rights" but it quickly leads men toward MAGA grifters. It's not a men's rights movement it's a movement that exploits vulnerable men.
> There's an overlap in the venn diagram, sure. But it's much smaller than what you think it is.
If the overlap is small, you'll have to explain why there are no major left wing manosphere personalities. Everyone on the left I know and follow who are fighting for men's rights and fighting misandry (a fight I've joined) does not consider themselves "in the manosphere".
> They are not competent or resourceful enough to take control of a government.
They definitely have resources -- more than a few billionaires were responsible for that.
But taking over the government, apparently, does not require competence. All it takes is a thirst for violence, a willingness to break the law and constitution, the backing of major corporations and the richest person in the world, and for enough good people to do nothing.
The men in his cabinet like Hegseth and Kennedy try to appeal to the testosterone laden (and deficient) crowd. Women like Bondi and Noem also tried their best manosphere impression, but of course in classic manosphere fashion, both women were booted out of the cabinet first.
To the extent that the military believes, as its leader does, that they are not operating under "stupid" rules of engagement, and their purpose is "maximum lethality" with a policy of "no quarter" for adversaries, the US Military is currently a defacto manosphere army.
In your view, what would a manosphere leader legitimately challenging an incumbent government apparatus look like?