Our Insights

For many employers, online culture is still treated as something that exists outside the workplace. Social media is viewed as part of employees’ private lives, while workplace culture is assumed to be shaped primarily by organizational policies, leadership practices, team dynamics and formal systems.

That distinction is becoming harder to sustain.

Online communities, including the manosphere, are shaping conversations about gender, masculinity, feminism, power and fairness and those ideas do not necessarily stay online. Employees do not leave their social environments, identities or worldviews behind when they enter an office, job site, hospital, manufacturing plant or boardroom. The ideas they absorb online can influence how they interpret colleagues, leaders and organizational decisions.

This is one reason the June 2026 report from the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Confronting Antifeminist Ideologies in Canada, deserves attention from employers.

Much of the public discussion around antifeminist ideology has understandably focused on the manosphere, online misogyny, gender-based violence and the ways extreme antifeminist ideologies can overlap with violent extremism. Yet the workplace implications are broader.

The term manosphere describes a broad collection of online communities centred on masculinity, men’s experiences and gender relations. These communities are not identical, but some promote antifeminist or misogynistic narratives, including the idea that feminism and gender equality have come at the expense of men.

Canadian organizations are increasingly likely to employ people whose understanding of gender, feminism, masculinity and relationships has been shaped not only by families, schools and communities, but also by highly personalized digital environments designed to capture attention and continuously reinforce content that keeps users engaged.

That does not mean a generation of men is simply becoming more misogynistic. Such a framing is reductive and obscures the more important issue.

Employers are beginning to experience the consequences of a fragmented and algorithmically mediated social environment in which employees may arrive at work with very different assumptions about gender equality, fairness, feminism, masculinity and social change. Those assumptions may be reinforced by online communities where ideological claims are repeatedly presented as common sense, evidence or cultural truth.

Why Antifeminist Narratives and the Manosphere Gain Traction

The appeal of antifeminist content needs to be understood in context.

Many men and boys who enter online spaces associated with the manosphere are not initially searching for misogyny. They may be looking for advice about fitness, confidence, dating, finances, leadership, personal development or belonging. Some may be experiencing loneliness, economic pressure or uncertainty about changing expectations of masculinity.

These are real experiences, and dismissing them does little to explain why particular narratives become persuasive.

The concern emerges when those experiences are translated into simplified ideological explanations. Economic insecurity becomes evidence that women or equity-deserving groups are receiving unfair advantages. Feelings of exclusion are reframed as evidence that diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are designed to disadvantage men.

These explanations can be compelling because they turn complex social conditions into clear stories of cause and blame. They may also offer community, identity and validation to people who feel disconnected from traditional institutions or uncertain about where they belong.

This dynamic is not new in political or social life. What is different today is the speed, personalization and repetition with which these narratives can be delivered.

How Social Media Algorithms Amplify Antifeminist Content

Social media algorithms do more than distribute information. They learn what holds an individual’s attention and continuously refine what that person encounters next.

A user may begin with mainstream content about fitness, dating, self-discipline or personal development and eventually encounter material about masculinity, gender hierarchies, feminism or perceived cultural decline.

Not everyone who consumes this content will adopt harmful beliefs, and it would be inaccurate to suggest otherwise. The concern is that platform design can make movement between different types of content remarkably easy while rewarding material that generates attention, certainty, conflict and emotional reaction.

Repetition matters.

When someone encounters hundreds of pieces of content reinforcing similar ideas, those ideas can begin to feel mainstream, widely accepted or empirically grounded, even when the underlying claims are selective, misleading or missing important context.

Gender norms have always been shaped through social environments, including families, schools, peer groups, television, advertising and popular culture. Today, those influences include highly personalized digital ecosystems that operate continuously and adapt to individual behaviour.

For employers, this matters because workplaces do not exist outside this information environment. They increasingly become places where competing social narratives meet.

How the Manosphere and Online Gender Politics Show Up at Work

Antifeminist ideology is unlikely to appear in most workplaces as an employee openly declaring opposition to women’s rights.

More often, it may surface through behaviours, assumptions and interpretations that appear interpersonal rather than ideological.

A woman who receives a promotion may be dismissed as a “diversity hire.” A woman leader may be judged more harshly for being assertive than a male colleague displaying similar behaviour. A transgender employee may face repeated questioning or jokes framed as personal opinion. A workplace equity initiative may be interpreted as evidence that men are being treated unfairly.

These biases are not new. What has changed is the information environment surrounding them.

An employee who once encountered a stereotype primarily through family, friends or popular culture can now receive continuous digital reinforcement for the same idea. Repeated exposure can influence what feels normal, credible or socially acceptable.

This dynamic is particularly relevant to the current backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion.

Some of that backlash reflects a zero-sum understanding of fairness: if women, racialized employees, Indigenous peoples, 2SLGBTQIA+ people or other underrepresented groups gain opportunities, someone else must necessarily lose. That interpretation can become particularly persuasive when individuals already feel uncertain about their own economic security, status or prospects.

For employers, this means it is no longer enough to state that inclusion matters.

Organizations also need to explain the reasoning behind their practices. Why are hiring processes structured in particular ways? What barriers are mentorship or sponsorship programs designed to address? Why is representation measured? How do equitable practices support better access to opportunity and stronger organizational outcomes?

Transparency will not eliminate disagreement. It can, however, make it harder for workplace initiatives to be reduced to simplistic narratives about preferential treatment.

How Employers Should Respond: Regulate Conduct, Not Private Ideology

Employers should be cautious about responding to these cultural shifts by attempting to police employees’ private beliefs.

Workplaces are made up of people with different political, social and cultural perspectives, and disagreement is inevitable. The more practical question is not whether employees agree with feminism, DEI or every organizational initiative. It is whether they behave in ways that are consistent with workplace expectations, human rights obligations and professional standards.

An employee does not need to share every belief held by their employer to work respectfully with women, report to a woman leader, collaborate with transgender or gender-diverse colleagues, or participate in equitable employment practices.

Organizations are generally better served by establishing clear expectations around respectful conduct, non-discrimination, professionalism and safety than by attempting to regulate private ideology.

This is also where psychological safety becomes important.

Employees should be able to ask questions about gender equity, challenge assumptions, raise concerns about fairness and discuss difficult topics without fearing that uncertainty or disagreement will automatically be interpreted as hostility.

At the same time, psychological safety does not require organizations to tolerate harassment, demeaning comments or discriminatory conduct. Curiosity and disagreement can be accommodated. Harmful behaviour still requires accountability.

That distinction matters because shame is rarely an effective strategy for changing deeply held beliefs. If people believe they will immediately be labelled sexist, racist, homophobic or transphobic for asking the wrong question, they may simply stop asking questions in formal workplace settings.

That does not necessarily change what they believe. Instead, they may seek answers in environments where polarization, grievance and misinformation are more readily reinforced.

Strong workplace cultures therefore need both accountability and genuine opportunities for learning.

How Gender Bias and Masculinity Norms Shape Workplace Culture

A more mature conversation about gender equality also needs to consider how gender expectations affect men.

Rigid expectations around masculinity such as emotional restraint, independence, control and toughness can influence how men lead, communicate and relate to others at work. They can also make vulnerability, help-seeking and relational leadership feel incompatible with authority.

Healthy masculinity offers a more constructive frame.

It does not require men to reject ambition, competitiveness, confidence or strength. Instead, it expands the range of behaviours that can coexist with those qualities.

Strength can include asking for help. Confidence can coexist with humility. Leadership can involve listening. Accountability can include empathy.

This matters for workplace culture because many traditional leadership models have historically rewarded narrow expressions of authority while undervaluing curiosity, emotional intelligence, collaboration and relational skill.

Expanding those norms benefits more than men. It creates more room for different leadership styles and helps organizations move away from assumptions about what authority, confidence or leadership are supposed to look like.

Why Media Literacy Is Becoming a Workplace Competency

Organizations have traditionally thought about digital literacy in terms of cybersecurity, privacy and technical competence.

That definition is becoming too narrow.

Employees increasingly need the ability to evaluate online claims, recognize manipulation, understand how algorithms influence what they encounter, and distinguish credible evidence from persuasive content.

These skills matter at work because misinformation can influence workplace attitudes.

An employee who repeatedly encounters claims that women are unfairly advantaged in hiring may bring those assumptions into recruitment discussions. Someone consuming hostile content about transgender identities may carry those beliefs into interactions with colleagues. A person exposed to conspiracy-driven claims about DEI may interpret routine workplace policies as ideological coercion rather than organizational practice.

Employers cannot control what employees consume in their private lives, nor should they attempt to.

They can, however, strengthen critical thinking and help employees understand how digital environments influence perception.

Media literacy should therefore be considered part of the broader conversation about leadership development, respectful-workplace education and organizational resilience.

The Role of Frontline Leaders in Addressing Gender Bias at Work

Senior executives may encounter these cultural shifts indirectly. Frontline leaders are more likely to encounter them in real time.

A supervisor hears a gendered joke and needs to decide whether to intervene. A manager receives a complaint about perceived preferential treatment. A woman leader encounters resistance from an employee who appears uncomfortable reporting to her. A transgender employee tells their supervisor that colleagues are repeatedly questioning their identity.

These situations require more than policy knowledge.

Leaders need the ability to distinguish legitimate questions from harmful conduct, facilitate difficult conversations, explain organizational expectations clearly, respond proportionately and recognize when coaching should give way to formal accountability.

They also need enough confidence to address smaller behaviours before they become larger workplace problems.

Organizations that do not equip managers for these moments risk responding only after conflict has escalated, relationships have deteriorated or employees have disengaged.

What Employers Can Do About the Manosphere’s Impact at Work

Employers cannot control social media algorithms or the content employees encounter outside of work. They can influence the workplace environment those employees enter each day.

That starts with treating this as a workplace culture and leadership issue rather than simply an online phenomenon.

Organizations can:

• Set clear behavioural expectations. Define expectations around respectful conduct, discrimination, harassment and professional behaviour without attempting to regulate employees’ private beliefs.
• Build managers’ capability. Prepare frontline leaders to respond to gendered comments, resistance to women leaders, concerns about perceived preferential treatment and conduct affecting gender-diverse employees.
• Explain the “why” behind equity practices. Help employees understand what barriers equitable hiring, mentorship, sponsorship, representation and inclusion practices are designed to address.
• Create space for difficult conversations. Build psychological safety that allows people to ask questions and discuss disagreement while maintaining clear boundaries around discriminatory or demeaning behaviour.
• Develop critical media literacy. Help employees and leaders recognize how algorithms, misinformation, repetition and emotionally charged content can influence perceptions of gender, fairness and workplace issues.
• Broaden leadership norms. Challenge narrow assumptions about masculinity, authority and leadership by recognizing the value of listening, empathy, accountability, curiosity and collaboration.

None of these actions requires employees to hold identical beliefs. They create a stronger organizational foundation for navigating difference.

Workplace Inclusion as Organizational Resilience

The goal should not be to create workplaces where everyone holds the same views about gender, feminism or social change.

Healthy organizations can contain disagreement.

The more important objective is ensuring that disagreement does not become dehumanization, exclusion or harassment.

That means creating workplaces where men can discuss their own challenges without framing women as the cause of them; where women can lead without their authority being routinely questioned; where gender-diverse employees are not expected to repeatedly defend their legitimacy; and where employees have enough critical literacy to recognize when resentment or fear is being amplified by digital environments designed to sustain engagement.

Perhaps the most useful workplace lesson from Canada’s recent examination of antifeminist ideology is not that men are simply becoming more misogynistic.

It is that workplaces are inheriting the effects of powerful digital cultures that organizations neither created nor control. Employees’ understandings of gender, masculinity, feminism, fairness and relationships are increasingly being shaped by personalized information environments that can reinforce very different versions of social reality.

Employers cannot regulate those algorithms, but they can shape what happens when their effects arrive at work.

That requires moving beyond a narrow view of DEI as a collection of policies or training programs and toward a broader understanding of workplace inclusion as organizational resilience.

Clear behavioural expectations, thoughtful accountability, psychological safety, critical media literacy, inclusive leadership norms and capable frontline management are not separate initiatives. They are increasingly interconnected parts of building a workplace that can navigate social change without allowing difference to become division.

The workplaces best prepared for the years ahead will not be those that avoid difficult conversations about gender.

They will be those capable of holding those conversations with enough clarity, evidence, accountability and humanity to keep disagreement from becoming division.

Related Articles

What Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 Still Teaches Us About Women, Workplace Culture and Leadership

Stay Connected