← Essays

A Gentleman Is Still a Class

The manosphere correctly diagnosed male loneliness but sold the wrong cure. The gentlemanosphere nails the method and fumbles the politics.

· 8 min read

man-in-black-suit-and-bow-tie-2026-01-11-08-14-32-utc.jpg

The manosphere got one thing right, and it is worth saying plainly before saying anything else. Men are lonely. Not metaphorically lonely, but structurally cut off. Even the determinedly centrist research lands in the same place. Richard Reeves’s American Institute for Boys and Men1, which I cite for its data, not its politics, keeps finding the same thing: men do not only report loneliness, they report feeling irrelevant, disconnected from any group that would notice if they disappeared. The Institute’s own figure is stark: fifteen per cent of young men now say they have no close friend, a fivefold rise since 1990. The manosphere named that wound and then poured grievance into it. Resentment as a remedy. Blame as belonging. It found a real hunger and fed it poison.

So the male-driven counter-movement also set out to find a name. The journalist Ari David Blaff coined “gentlemanosphere” in The Dispatch, Reeves has become its most cited advocate, and a broader, mostly male ecosystem of self-improvement podcasters has taken up the banner. The pitch is simple and, on method, correct. No shortcuts. Show up. Do something hard with other men. Build something. Friendship arrives shoulder to shoulder, not face to face.

I want to be fair about this, because the method is the part I agree with. The insight that male friendship is a by-product of joint effort rather than a thing you arrange over coffee is sound. It is better psychology than anything the grievance merchants offer, and it is kinder. If the whole of the gentlemanosphere were “belong to something and build alongside other people”, my objection would dissolve, because my objection was never to the principle, only to the material politics wrapped around it.

But the trouble is the word itself.

The word does the damage

“Gentleman” is not a neutral term for a decent man. It is a class category, and it has been for centuries. The word turns up wearing tails.2 A gentleman owned land, or income, or at minimum the leisure to cultivate manners. The word never describes character. It described standing, then dressed that standing up as character, so the people who had it could feel they had earned it. When you tell a lonely man that the answer to his isolation is to become a gentleman, you have quietly told him the answer is to acquire a particular kind of respectability, the ‘bourgeois’ kind, and that the men who cannot acquire it are simply not trying hard enough.

That is the meritocratic sleight of hand, and it is the core of my objection. Meritocracy is comforting if you are already inside it, because it lets you read your position as the just reward for your effort. It is corrosive if you are outside it, because it reads your exclusion as a personal failing. The gentlemanosphere takes a structural condition, the slow collapse of the places where men used to belong, and quietly reframes it as a project of self-improvement. Fix yourself, and the belonging will follow. It rarely says this out loud. It does not have to. The word carries it.

Neoliberalism with better manners

Here is what the scholarship already saw. Shawn Van Valkenburgh’s “Digesting the Red Pill” reads the manosphere not as a glitch but as neoliberalism speaking through men: a worldview in which every outcome is a personal transaction, every failure a failure of self-optimisation, every man a sole trader hustling in a sexual marketplace. That logic is the manosphere’s operating system beneath all the misogyny.

The gentlemanosphere does not really break with that logic. It inherits it. It keeps the individualism and simply changes the tone. Instead of “the world owes you and refuses to pay,” it offers, “the world owes you nothing, so build yourself.” In both versions, the full burden falls on the individual man. Neither one asks why third places disappeared, why working men’s clubs and youth clubs were closed and spaces sold to private property developers, why wages stagnated, or why the ordinary structures that once made shoulder-to-shoulder friendship part of everyday life were dismantled in the first place. I have watched those spaces get sold off and turned into flats all over London. “Be a better man” is a perfectly reasonable sentence. Structurally, though, it also functions as an alibi. It sends the man back toward his own character so that no one has to look too hard at the conditions around him.

And the framework leaves people out by design. The man working two jobs cannot build something with other men on a Tuesday evening, because on Tuesday evening, he is at the second job or exhausted from a week that consumes any glimpse of his free time. The model reads his absence as a deficit of will rather than a deficit of time and money, which is exactly the inversion meritocracy is built to perform.

Women, meanwhile, are written out of the story altogether, which is a strange move for a project claiming to be the grown-up answer to misogyny. You do not undo the manosphere’s central act by segregating men from women, by constructing a more tasteful version of the same wall.

The people who actually explained this were women

Which brings me to the point I keep returning to.

Some of the sharpest writing on the manosphere, the work that actually explained it rather than just reacting to it, was done by women. Debbie Ging’s “Alphas, Betas, and Incels” gave us the vocabulary for its hybrid masculinities, its strange performance of victimhood. Lisa Sugiura’s “The Incel Rebellion” did the patient, often grim, ethnographic work, and reflected openly on what it costs to be a woman studying men who hate women. Alice Marwick and Robyn Caplan, Sarah Banet-Weiser, Susan Faludi, before them. They did the structural analysis. They saw the class and the political economy sitting underneath the misogyny, and they named it.

Meanwhile, many of the men now trying to design a way out, with real data and sincere good intentions, end up reproducing the same individualism these women had already diagnosed. They have the loneliness statistics, they have the right instinct about friendship, and they still reach for self-improvement as the solution, because it is the only solution neoliberalism leaves readily available. I do not think academic men are blind, exactly. I think they are standing inside a frame that makes structural answers harder to imagine, while personal answers feel like plain common sense. That is what a successful ideology does: it renders its own assumptions invisible.

Keep the method, drop the gentleman

So this is where I land. Keep the method. The insight that friendship often grows through shared effort is undoubtedly valuable, and I promote it without hesitation. Drop the gentleman.

A real answer to male loneliness is not a better class of man. It is a rebuilt commons: things men and women can belong to without having to earn their way in. Clubs, unions, libraries, sheds, teams, choirs, mutual aid groups, the kinds of institutions that ask for your presence rather than your merit. Places where you qualify by showing up, not by becoming respectable. The “gentlemanosphere” keeps alive the same political logic that helped create the problem in the first place. It is a more digestible version of the same system, leaving the same people outside the same door.

The method is sound. The branding is the problem. And until the people trying to build an exit are willing to direct their analysis at the structure rather than the self, the gentlemanosphere will remain what it is now: the manosphere’s better-mannered cousin. It holds the door open for some men, and quietly decides the rest did not try hard enough to walk through.

A better class of man was never the answer. A gentleman is still a class.

References

Footnotes

  1. The American Institute for Boys and Men was founded in 2023 by Richard Reeves, a centre-left Brookings scholar and author of Of Boys and Men (2022). It brands itself as non-partisan; Melinda French Gates later enlisted Reeves to help distribute $20m to men-and-boys groups. Reeves is attacked from both flanks: the right (for example the Institute for Family Studies) faults him for accepting establishment and feminist orthodoxies, while some feminists question whether a men-and-boys agenda is a corrective or a fresh form of backlash. I draw on the Institute’s figures, not its centrist diagnosis. ↩

  2. “Tails” is a tailcoat: the formal, swallow-tailed evening dress historically worn by the British upper classes, and still seen at social events and in the old Eton uniform. I use it here as shorthand for inherited class and bearing, rather than anything a man actually does or earns. ↩