@First-light

My fwb has seen this as she suspect something...

So I asked her what are her takeways.

The main question was how does it benefit boys, over being influenced by media the other way (no jargon but that supposed to mean blue pill). I told her basically anything is better, even these obscure characters, as once boys will get out of anger state, they will do better than before, and since these boys are listening to them then, financially speaking, there is a market for that.

That was spruced up with allegories that she can refer to - herself, to increase takeaway from me.

There was few other things, but only one I genuinely could agree with and is quality observation.

When Walller's girl was showing around a gym, she has shown one mannerism that I have seen.

Talking about her daughter "she's got a Lambo" talking about toy car. One thing from 2 weeks, factual but probably unimportant in greater scheme of things.

I agree on:

that it contributes to that gain, providing "maximum exposure to individuals who consider any kind of attention a win. It leaves a bitter, nasty taste in the mouth".[11]

He criticises that nothing came out of it, that would kill the "manosphere", despite big name behind it.

without providing appropriate pushback to their views.

Because that needs questioning things, and modern audiences and creators don't do that, that is too dangerous.

@Typo-MAGAshiv Theroux is not actually that bad. Yes he is a liberal but he did make some more sensitive stuff in the past. I think this time Netflix commissioned a credible liberal known for interviewing outsiders to do a hatchet job on the manosphere. They wanted a hatchet job and they needed someone to give it some credibility. Theroux is definitely one of them -a liberal metropolitan muppet and he had some credibility as an authority in the field. I feel they used him badly.

What I find hilarious is how the liberals marked their own homework on this. Check out Wikipedia's reviews of the documentary. They don't say "He found some easy and quite obnoxious targets who were not representative of the manosphere and took some easy shots at them. A more representative sample of men interviewed and an attempt to understand why the men feel the way they do might have worked better with Theroux's empathic style of interviewing would improved it considerably". Instead they say "not enough women, not enough push back on the manosphere."

Anyone on here know how to add to wikipedia or change parts of it?

"Initial reception of Inside the Manosphere was mixed. Some commentators criticised the lack of female voices in the documentary and felt that it did not break any new ground in coverage of the manosphere. Others said that it was essential viewing for anyone unaware of the pervasiveness of manosphere content online and its direct link to misogyny.[10]

Adam White of The Independent labelled the documentary a "failure" by virtue of its subject matter, since Theroux's "methods of gentle, observational needling prove no match for an online culture defined by its apathetic immorality". The review stated that Theroux's attempts to intellectualise his interviewees' views and point out their hypocrisies mean little for a sub-culture which "positions personal financial gain above all else". For White, the documentary's ultimate failure is that it contributes to that gain, providing "maximum exposure to individuals who consider any kind of attention a win. It leaves a bitter, nasty taste in the mouth".[11]

Lucy Mangan, writing for The Guardian, similarly criticised Theroux's typical documentary technique as incompatible for a manosphere focus: "the silent supposed bafflement and dependence on giving people enough rope to hang themselves, which are such a large part of his arsenal, look like increasingly feeble weapons when the matters are of such increasing importance in all of our lives". Mangan noted further that the appearances of the women in the featured creators' lives were "potentially very interesting" and something Theroux should have pursued further. His alternative focus on the men's childhoods, for Mangan, "begins to seem a lot like excuse-hunting instead of an interrogation" of their views. Mangan also stated that Theroux was "a bit late to the party", with so many other manosphere documentaries already available, and questioned whether a documentary on this theme fronted by a woman "might yield something new".[12]

Annabel Hoare's review for The Conversation aligned with White's view that the documentary amplified the profiles of manosphere creators without providing appropriate pushback to their views. For Hoare, "the danger is that viewers may come away with a clear understanding of the style and aspirations of the manosphere. But they are left in the dark as to its harmful effects both to young men and women – and how this harm occurs"."