ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT' - MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY: UNDERSTANDING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN ONLINE PLATFORMS AND COUNTERPUBLIC DYNAMICS - DIVA PORTAL

‘All Women Are Like That’

  Men Going Their Own Way: Understanding the Interplay Between
          Online Platforms and Counterpublic Dynamics

                                    Emma Aler

Master’s Thesis, 30 Credits

Master’s Programme in Political Science, Autumn Term 2020

Uppsala University, Department of Government

Supervisor: Malin Holm

Word count: 19 961

                                                            i

Abstract

This thesis examines the role of online platforms in relation to anti-progressive counterpublic
dynamics. Counterpublics are understood as alternative discursive arenas that form in response
to exclusion from the wider public sphere. The relevance of counterpublics derives both from
their ability to influence mainstream political discourse and from how anti-progressive
counterpublics have been found to contribute to real-life violence. As the internet becomes an
increasingly important venue for political discussion and contestation, the public sphere is
extended online. This study explores how platforms can be seen as enabling (or constraining)
the dual function of online counterpublics, i.e. as both inward and outward-oriented in relation
to opposing publics, by examining the anti-feminist online community known as “Men Going
Their Own Way” (MGTOW). The role of platforms is understood in terms of platform
affordances, and netnographic methods were used to study these in relation to two online
platforms. The results show that the two platforms presented different opportunities for the
MGTOW counterpublic to some extent, suggesting that this counterpublic is able to utilise
platforms for different purposes. Twitter was found to be particularly suitable for the outward-
oriented function, i.e. for interacting with and opposing other publics, while mgtow.com was
shown to be fertile ground for the inward-oriented function, and in that sense enabled contact
between members in a way that contributed to the development of anti-progressive
counterdiscourse.

Key words: counterpublics, online platforms, platform affordances, netnography, public
sphere, anti-feminism

                                                                                           ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
   Aim and Research Question ............................................................................................... 3
   Thesis Outline.................................................................................................................... 4
Previous Research................................................................................................................ 5
   The Internet as a Public Sphere? ........................................................................................ 5
   The Manosphere ................................................................................................................ 6
   Men Going Their Own Way............................................................................................... 9
Theory ................................................................................................................................ 11
   (Non-)Subaltern Counterpublics: Anti-Progressive Struggles ........................................... 11
   Platform Affordances ....................................................................................................... 14
   The Affordances of Association, Anonymity and Extreme Public Expression .................. 16
   Analytical Framework ..................................................................................................... 19
   First Function .................................................................................................................. 20
       Counterdiscourse Formation ........................................................................................ 20
   Second Function .............................................................................................................. 22
       Targeting Opposing Publics ......................................................................................... 22
       Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics ...................................... 23
   Netnography .................................................................................................................... 26
   Material ........................................................................................................................... 27
   Case Selection ................................................................................................................. 29
   Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................... 31
Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 33
   The First Function: Inward-Oriented Activities ................................................................ 34
       Counterdiscourse Formation ........................................................................................ 34
   The Second Function: Outward-Oriented Activities ......................................................... 40
       Targeting Opposing Publics ......................................................................................... 40
       Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics ...................................... 43
Concluding Discussion ....................................................................................................... 47
References .......................................................................................................................... 51

                                                                                                                                     iii

Introduction

The struggle between feminists and anti-feminists, or Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s), has
drawn a lot of attention in recent years. With the emergence of social media platforms, this
“culture war” has spread to most corners of the internet. Online MRA communities are often
associated with online harassment, usually directed towards women and feminists (Van
Valkenburg 2018). However, there have also been instances of “real-life” violence derived
from anti-feminist mobilisation, as exemplified by “Gamergate” and the “Isla Vista-shootings”
(Gray et al. 2017; Rodger 2014; Van Valkenburg 2018, p. 2). Together, these communities are
often referred to as the “Manosphere”. The Manosphere contains several different communities
that all have their roots in the MRA movement, despite otherwise having somewhat different
philosophies and goals. It can be found all across the internet and on an array of different
platforms. Importantly, previous studies of online-based movements have highlighted how the
internet as a platform for social mobilisation presents new opportunities for equal participation
in political discourse (Lindgren 2017). However, certain platforms have been shown to instead
enable the development of anti-progressive communities, such as the ones found in the
Manosphere (see Holm 2019; Massanari 2017). As more political discourse takes place online,
we need to understand the workings of anti-progressive communities which otherwise risk
becoming a hotbed for extremism.

A way of understanding these online social communities is as counterpublics; as social and
discursive entities competing for power and influence in the online sphere. Counterpublics are
understood in relation to the wider concept of the public sphere (as described by Habermas,
1989), as important spaces for the formation of alternative political discourse1 (Fraser 1990).
It is used to describe how new discursive entities have developed within the public sphere, as
a response to exclusion from “mainstream” publics (Asen 2000, p. 424). With the internet and
online platforms becoming increasingly important political venues, the public sphere has been
extended online. The function of counterpublics is twofold: As venues for formulating
counterdiscourses, and as spaces from which other publics can be targeted. Studies of
counterpublics have up until recently been focused on marginalised or oppressed groups, that
strive for progression and equality. In this sense, progressive counterpublics have functioned

1
 Discourse is here understood as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (Jorgensen
and Phillips 2002, p. 9).

                                                                                                         1

as spaces for political innovation and mobilisation. Although online platforms have given new
opportunities for open discussion and inclusion, we also see how anti-progressive communities
such as the Manosphere become more influential in these spaces. We therefore need to explore
both how anti-progressive groups are targeting mainstream discourse in online spaces, and how
online platforms affect anti-progressive discourses and thus possibly provide the opportunities
for these to grow and be sustained.

There are thus both empirical and theoretical justifications for studying different parts of the
Manosphere as counterpublics. The Manosphere is, despite its relative size and importance,
fairly understudied. The increasingly hostile and violent misogynistic discourse of the
Manosphere has been shown to not only shape the beliefs of its members, but to have had very
real consequences for women who have been targets of threats, harassment and acts of violence
both online and offline (see e.g. Gray et al. 2017). These developments call for the need to
study the Manosphere further. Similarly, it has been instrumental for discourses of men’s
rights, anti-feminism and masculinity, which has been developing as a response to the
progression of gender equality and changing gender roles and norms in recent years (see Alani
et al. 2019; Ging 2019; Marwick and Caplan 2018; Van Valkenburgh 2018).

This thesis is hence interested in how the dual function of counterpublics is affected by online
platforms, specifically exploring how platforms can be said to enable or constrain dynamics
within counterpublics. The aim is to provide novel perspectives in relation to previous research,
by studying these dynamics within one community and comparing its presence on two different
online platforms. This relation is usually understood through the concept of platform
affordances (see Holm 2019, Hutchby 2001, Massanari 2017). Platform affordances either
enable or constrain certain behaviour in relation to a specific platform. As previous research
has shown that certain platforms are favourable environments for anti-progressive
counterpublics (see e.g. Massanari 2017), this should be investigated further. However, studies
of counterpublics have mostly been focused on subaltern or marginalised groups, which form
in response to exclusion from the wider public sphere. The focus for this thesis is however on
how counterpublics might form as a consequence of perceived exclusion rather than an actual
subaltern position in relation to dominant publics (Asen 2000)2. There is a small but growing
number of studies concerned with counterpublics in online environments, mostly focused on

2
    Understood as non-subaltern counterpublics (Holm 2019).

                                                                                            2

progressive communities (e.g. boyd 2010; Salter 2018; Travers 2003), while only a few have
studied anti-progressive counterpublics (see Holm 2019; Törnberg & Wahlström 2018).
Studies of the Manosphere have mostly focused on understanding how masculinities are
constructed in this context (see e.g. Banet-Weiser & Miltner 2016; Ging 2019; Marwick &
Caplan 2018; Van Valkenburgh 2018), as well as how different communities within the wider
Manosphere have formed a common identity (see e.g. Burgess & Matamoros-Fernández 2018;
Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020). However, we need to learn more how platform affordances
affect counterpublic dynamics, if we are to understand how these publics increase their
influence on online platforms.

The analysis will be focused on a specific Manosphere counterpublic with an anti-progressive
and anti-feminist agenda, namely “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW). MGTOW is a
group dedicated to avoiding all relationships (or even general contact) with women as a reaction
to what they believe is the “gynocentric” world order. The group is understood as privileged3
in relation to the publics that they oppose. This is motivated by how members describe their
own situation and status, which is usually as heterosexual, well-educated and with material and
monetary resources (which will be elaborated upon below). While there have been a few studies
that have specifically studied the MGTOW community, these have been focused on either
mapping the content of discussions through quantitative methods or using textual analysis to
look more closely at a single platform, rather than how it functions as a counterpublic. This
study can therefore hopefully contribute with a small piece to the puzzle of how online
environments affect non-equitable discourses, and how we can see counterpublics as spaces
for anti-progressive discursive formation as well as progressive.

Aim and Research Question

The aim of this thesis is to explore the role of platforms in mediating counterpublic dynamics.
This thesis does not seek to make causal claims, but to study behaviour and actions in relation
to, and in the context of the platforms. The analysis will be focused on the MGTOW
community, understood as a part of the so-called “Manosphere”. The relevance of this case
stems primarily from links between the Manosphere and real-life violence, and the importance

3
 Privilege is understood as having “social, economic, cultural, and political advantages” which others are
denied, as a consequence of social structures shaping norms and ideals in terms of social grouping (Sparks
2020).

                                                                                                             3

of online political discourse for the public sphere (see Dahlgren 2005; Paparacharissi 2002).
The study is further motivated by how certain online platforms have been shown to provide
support for already privileged groups, such as different Manosphere communities, as a
consequence of their design (see Holm 2019; Massanari 2017). The overarching research
question is therefore: How do platform affordances enable (or constrain) the dual function of
online counterpublics with anti-progressive agendas?

The emerging field concerned with anti-progressive counterpublics has so far been dominated
by in-depth case studies. Subsequently, comparisons across platforms have been few. MGTOW
will therefore be studied in relation to two different online platforms. The purpose of this is to
further explore how platform affordances affect the dual function of counterpublics, i.e. as both
outward- and inward-oriented discursive spaces. Two different platforms have been selected
for analysis: Twitter and the “official” MGTOW website (mgtow.com). Finally, the analysis
will be conducted using netnography (Kozinets 2010), which can provide us with novel
perspectives of the relationship between online platforms and political discourse, considering
that this is not a method that is commonly used in political science. Thematic analysis is then
used to sort and categorise the material in accordance with the analytical framework, which
will be presented below.

Thesis Outline

The structure of this thesis is as follows: Firstly, previous research of relevance to this study is
presented and discussed, focusing on studies of the Manosphere. A theoretical overview is then
presented, where the concepts of the public sphere, counterpublic theory and platform
affordances are introduced. This section is concluded with an analytical framework, which
serves as the basis for the analysis. This is followed by a section devoted to research design,
with a discussion on method, material, case selection and ethical considerations. The analysis
is then presented, where each counterpublic function is examined in relation to theoretically
and empirically relevant platform affordances. Finally, there will be a concluding discussion
where the findings are reflected upon in terms of how they contribute to the field.

                                                                                               4

Previous Research

This section provides an overview of previous research concerning the Manosphere as a whole,
and MGTOW in particular. We have enough knowledge about how the internet can facilitate
social movements, to say that digital tools such as platforms can contribute to political change
(Lindgren 2017, p. 182). Research on online movements have thus become more common and
generally accepted (Kozinets 2010, pp. 1-3). Studies of online counterpublics have been
focused on marginalised and progressive groups, who utilise online platforms to forward their
agenda and formulate counterdiscourses (see e.g. Kuo 2018; Salter 2013; Travers 2003). Anti-
progressive and extreme right movements, such as the ”alt-right” movement, have also been
shown to successfully mobilise on these platforms (see e.g. Hawley 2017; Nagle 2017;
Törnberg and Wahlström 2018). However, specifically anti-feminist counterpublics need to be
researched further. We can see from events such as “Gamergate” and the Isla Vista shootings
that what happens within the online anti-feminist community can have great implications for
the political discourse outside of it, as well as contributing to real-life violence. Therefore, this
section will begin with a discussion of the internet as a venue for political discussion. A
description of the Manosphere will follow, which provides the context for understanding
MGTOW as a community. This section will also discuss how previous research has dealt with
studying different parts of the Manosphere.

The Internet as a Public Sphere?

When it was first introduced, the internet had the potential to “revolutionize most areas of social
life”, (ibid., p. 46) and evidence suggests that this in many ways came true. The internet would
enable free political discussion, by facilitating connections and inclusive discussion (Daniels
2009, p. 46). Optimists even hypothesized that since online communication would lower
thresholds for political participation, this would facilitate the development of a “global
democracy” of sorts (Papacharissi 2002, p. 10). Nonetheless, the prospects for the internet to
become an inclusive and democratic arena for discussion now looks somewhat different
(Lindgren 2017, p. 46). Papacharissi (2002, p. 10) points to the number of political groups and
activists online, showing that the internet undoubtedly is a very political space. Easy access to
information and possibilities to engage with people on the other side of the globe have certainly
enabled political discussion. However, the fact that these opportunities exist does not
necessarily ensure greater, or more equitable, political activity (ibid., p. 15). We can now see

                                                                                                5

that cyberspace is becoming increasingly fragmented, resulting in more interconnected, but not
necessarily more diverse, communities. Others have questioned how genuine online political
activism really is, compared to more traditional forms of engagement (ibid., p. 17).
Nonetheless, Dahlgren (2005) points to the role of the internet in facilitating and reinforcing
offline political engagement.

Lindgren (2017) further argues that although digital spaces were initially thought of as
something separate from everyday life, they have now become embedded with our lives, to the
extent that we can fully understand them only when seen in the context of “offline” realities.
Importantly, digital platforms will also signify different things depending on the people, groups
or social movements that uses them (p. 266). In that sense, it is of great interest to political
science, as well as other fields, to explore the ways in which the internet functions as a public
sphere. We have seen that the internet has become a place for non-egalitarian groups as well
as progressive ones to contest dominant discourses, making it crucial to understand how online
environments affect counterpublics. The Manosphere is particularly relevant in relation to the
development of anti-progressive online communities, which will be discussed further in the
next section.

The Manosphere

When looking at the loosely connected community that constitutes online anti-feminism, the
Manosphere seems to be the epicentre. The Manosphere is therefore of interest for this analysis,
or rather, the MGTOW counterpublic as part of this larger community. This corner of the
internet contains a number of online anti-feminist communities with some important
ideological similarities (see e.g. Alani et al. 2019; Marwick and Caplan 2018). MRAs, Incels,
gamergaters, pickup artists and MGTOW are all groups who have found commonality within
this space. Although there are now a growing number of studies focusing on the Manosphere,
our understanding of it is still relatively limited. Nevertheless, the Manosphere is important to
understand both from a theoretical and an empirical standpoint. Most of the ideas behind the
“philosophies” and ideas found in the Manosphere originate from the MRA community or the
“Men’s Liberation” movement. Initially a continuation of the feminist movement, scholars in
this field pointed to how men also could be negatively affected by a patriarchal society. The
focus was on drafting requirements, unequal child support legislation and the dangers of
traditional masculinity norms (Marwick and Caplan 2018, p. 546). While these ideas are still

                                                                                            6

central to the movement today, most contemporary MRA’s are both anti-feminist and pro-
men’s liberation and have therefore abandoned some of these ideas (Alani et al. 2019). This
movement is described by Marwick and Caplan (ibid.) as “a reaction to diminishing social
status of cisgender white men, and the emergence of feminist and multicultural activism as a
mainstream political force”. “The Red Pill” (TRP) is an idea shared by most communities in
the Manosphere, but also a movement in itself – “Taking the red pill” signifies waking up to
the evils of society, which is an idea borrowed from the film “The Matrix”. Saying that
someone is “Blue Pilled” on the other hand means that you are unaware of this “truth”. In the
Manosphere, this often means realising how feminism has given women power over men, and
that women are not in fact discriminated against in modern society (Jones, Trott, and Wright
2020).

Recent studies have shown that misogyny, violence and hostility against women are prevalent
throughout the Manosphere. Alani et al. (2019) studied patterns of language and ideas across
several communities on Reddit that are considered a part of the Manosphere. Their study shows
an increase in misogynistic attitudes and that hostility and violence are directed towards women
to an increasing extent. Their findings further suggest that violent rhetoric often appears
together with expressions of misogyny. Certain elements of the Manosphere have been
connected to instances of real-life violence. The misogynistic jargon within this community
has been shown to normalise anti-women sentiments and even serve to radicalise some of its
members, why it is important to understand the community better. An example that is often
mentioned is that of Isla Vista mass-shooter Elliot Rodger, who accredited his radicalisation
and misogynist beliefs to Manosphere websites. According to his manifesto, the killings were
motivated by his own disappointment in his sexual endeavours and his hatred towards women
(Rodger 2014; Van Valkenburg 2018, p. 2). Kimmel (2013) describes the anger that can be felt
by groups in a privileged position, when they experience external threats to that position, with
the term aggrieved entitlement. This can be understood as something which is fuelling toxicity
in certain contexts. Kimmel describes the sense of anger that is felt when something thought of
as a “God-given right” is taken away. His study is focused on the American context, in which
many men today feel threatened by the successes of feminism and equality, in the sense that
they are seeing their own privileges disappearing. This in turn fuels a “politically motivated
anger”, the results of which can be seen in the growing men’s rights movement, and in
politically motivated shootings and violence (ibid., p. 26). Kimmel writes: “the game has
changed, but instead of questioning the rules, they want to eliminate the other players” (p. 15).

                                                                                            7

He describes men’s violence against women as restorative, or as a way of expressing power.
This violence seems to be fuelled by a sense of loss and vulnerability. If it is a man’s right to
have a relationship with a woman, using violence as a way of protecting that right might seem
legitimate (pp. 169-177). The Manosphere can be interpreted as a result of how this violence
is legitimised within anti-feminist communities.

There are a few groups within the Manosphere that have been studied before. The Gamergate
controversy has been studied as an example of how online discourse can have an impact on
“offline” realities. For example, Gray et al. (2017, pp. 1-2) focuses on the real-life violence that
women and other marginalised groups experience in the gaming community, and how it has
been normalised through a structural and institutional “culture of inequality” with its most
notable peak in the events of Gamergate in 2014. Gamergate has been described as a hate
campaign against women in the gaming industry. The movement that developed from the
Gamergate controversy represents how for a long time, this male-dominated space has fostered
a normalisation of different kinds of violence against women in games, to such an extent that
it has triggered violence against women in real life. Specifically, Gray et al. points to the
symbolic violence that women in gaming are frequently exposed to, for example in the form of
doxing (having personal information published online without one’s consent), rape and death
threats, and threats of violence. Gamergate is an example of how online anti-feminist discourse
can have “real-life” consequences, and other communities and groups have been studied in
similar ways. Massanari (2017, p. 330) poses the question of how the affordances of a specific
platform, i.e. Reddit, enable anti-feminist activism, arguing that the ways in which it is
designed and managed support already privileged groups (usually white, young, cis-gendered,
heterosexual men). Using two cases of “toxic technocultures”, Gamergate and “The
Fappening”, Massanari shows through ethnographic study and observation how these
communities could grow and be sustained on Reddit as a result of the platform’s specific
affordances. Reddit’s design, the logic behind its algorithm, the way it is governed and
administered to ensure that it is a “neutral” platform for discussion, and the lack of intervention
by administrators is shown to have been instrumental in the development of these publics (ibid.,
pp. 341-342). Furthermore, Ging (2019, p. 644) looks specifically at constructions of
masculinities across the Manosphere. Her results suggest a prevalence of hybrid masculinities,
that are united in a dissatisfaction with the successes of feminism. Next, Van Valkenburg
(2018) uses critical textual analysis to study the r/TRP subreddit, which has become a central
part of the Manosphere, and finds that this community favours a “scientific rationality”.

                                                                                               8

Women’s (and men’s) sexual behaviour is understood through biology or genetic determinism,
explaining why some men are favoured as partners over others. Men are thought of as either
“alpha” or “beta”-male. A central idea is that women are only interested in having sexual
relations with alpha males, while beta males are the ones chosen for procreation and marriage.
As we can see, misogyny and sexism are prevalent themes within the Manosphere. We have
seen that this can have an impact on “real-life” events and that these communities can be
expected to influence the general political discussion online, making it particularly relevant to
study Manosphere communities as counterpublics to understand how they contest mainstream
discourses. Next, the MGTOW counterpublic, which is the focus of this study, will be more
closely examined.

Men Going Their Own Way

This thesis will be focused on a particular community within the Manosphere, namely “Men
Going Their Own Way”. Understood by most as a more recent phenomenon that emerged from
online MRA and TRP contexts, MGTOW presents itself as a movement which can be traced
back far in history: “Way back to Schopenhauer, Tesla, Beethoven, Galileo, or even Jesus
Christ” according to the website mgtow.com, which has become a central platform. The act of
“going your own way” is described as something that successful men have done for centuries,
making its current form but a continuation of this. Interestingly, this website is very different
from Reddit and other similar platforms where Manosphere communities are active. The colour
scheme is dark and the “home page” contains images of famous men that supposedly represent
the MGTOW movement. MGTOW is a group dedicated to avoiding all relationships (or even
general contact) with women as a reaction to what they believe is the “gynocentric” world
order. Their beliefs are based on the idea that modern society is constructed to the unfair
advantage of women, resulting in men rather than women being oppressed as a group
(O’Donnell 2020, p. 655). This movement has been understood as a backlash against the
successes of feminism (Gotell and Dutton 2016). According to this philosophy, men and
masculinity are under attack from the left and its political correctness, in a way that threatens
Western society as a whole (O’Donnell 2020, p. 655). Visitors to mgtow.com are greeted by
the following message: “There has been an awakening. Changing the world. One man at a
time”, as to signify waking up to “the truth” about how society is constructed. This message
seems to lie at the heart of the community.

                                                                                            9

A few studies have focused solely on the MGTOW community, mostly investigating their
discursive practices and processes of identity-building. Jones, Trott, and Wright (2019)
conducted a content and thematic analysis of a large number of posts by three “key users” on
Twitter. They find that MGTOW relies on a jargon and belief system that is to a large extent
based on “toxic masculinity” and misogyny (ibid., p. 1917). A majority of posts that mention
women are hateful, often describing women as gold diggers, sluts or liars, suggesting a
misogynistic ideology with ties to “toxic masculinity”. Most of these posts are examples of
passive harassment, which serves to create a sense of commonality between members of the
group through the normalisation of misogyny and sexism. The study by Jones, Trott, and
Wright from 2020 (p. 908) focuses on communitarian behaviour in the forum on the MGTOW-
website. They find that most discussions are focused on either women or the nature of the group
itself. Most users have adopted an openly misogynist rhetoric. Focus was hence on defining
their ideology and rationalising it on both an individual and group level, through discussions
of how to properly “go your own way”, or stories of how women have betrayed or cheated
members of the community. This storytelling is used to convey how or why one has become
“red pilled” and decided to join the community. Femininity is usually framed as a threat to
masculinity, and these are seen as opposing one another. Gender is furthermore discussed in
essentialist terms, and this view is often rationalised by references to science, technology,
philosophy or religion (ibid., p. 920).

From other studies, we understand the concept of “alpha” and “beta” males, which also can be
found in the MGTOW community. This is the idea that since women only are sexually
interested in “alpha” men, a marriage with a “beta” man will more often than not result in a
divorce where he is stripped of his financial assets (Ging 2019, p. 650). The concept of alpha
and beta men seems to have originated from the PUA community but has now been widely
adopted throughout the Manosphere. Interestingly, in the MGTOW community, Incels and
MRA’s are often referred to as beta male while MGTOWs are rather seen as “normal” men.
Nevertheless, their experiences with women have led them to subsequently become “red pilled”
(ibid.). While undoubtedly similar, MGTOW seems to have developed a distinct understanding
of masculinity which separates them from other groups in the Manosphere (Jones, Trott, and
Wright 2020, p. 1904-5).

Apart from the studies described above, we know very little about MGTOW and how it can be
understood as a counterpublic. The studies above have been focused on ideology and rhetoric,

                                                                                          10

but we have limited knowledge about how they use different platforms, or what role different
platforms have in terms of discourse. With these studies as a starting point, this analysis will
therefore explore this further. In previous studies, some future areas for research are mentioned,
such as cross-platform comparison, and further studies of ideology and motivations behind
MGTOW. It is specifically mentioned by Jones, Trott and Wright (2020, p. 922) that future
research could benefit from studying interactions between this and different publics on other
platforms. The aim of this research has therefore been formulated with this perspective as a
starting point.

Theory

The following section is devoted to a theoretical overview, representing a framework which
will be used to guide and structure the analysis, as well as putting it in relation to central issues
in the field of publics and affordances. Firstly, there will be a review of counterpublic theory.
Following this, there will be a discussion of the role of platform affordances in relation to online
communities.

(Non-)Subaltern Counterpublics: Anti-Progressive Struggles

The concept of the public sphere was introduced by Jürgen Habermas in his seminal work from
1989, to explain the workings of public opinion in Western representative democracy.
Habermas described the public sphere as “private people gathered together as a public and
articulating the needs of society with the state” (p. 176). The function of the public sphere was
scrutinising political decision-making and ensuring that public opinion was heard by politicians
and the like. Habermas’ public sphere was that of the 18th century bourgeoisie, but what
constitutes a public in modern society has been widely debated, and scholars have since both
criticized and developed his ideas. Warner (2002, pp. 49-50) suggests three options: A public
can either be seen as a “social totality”, meaning a specific group belonging to some kind of
community, such as the population of a state or a city. A public can also be understood as a
concrete and visible audience or crowd. Finally, a public can exist purely in relation to a text,
as a space of discourse. When looking at online behaviour, Warner’s categories become
somewhat tricky to distinguish between. With new technologies, we gain tools and information
that can change the ways in which we engage in political conversation (Papacharissi 2002, p.

                                                                                                11

10). However, understanding an online public as either a “social totality” or as a space of
discourse might be helpful. As new modes of communication develop, we must consider the
concept of the public sphere in novel contexts.

One of those criticising Habermas’ public sphere was Nancy Fraser, who expanded on the idea
by claiming that there in fact are multiple public spheres, rather than just one. She coined the
term subaltern counterpublic to explain how there are non-liberal spheres in conflict with the
liberal public sphere, something which was not considered by Habermas (1990, p. 62). Asen
(2000, pp. 425-427) also calls for a recognition of social complexity in our theorising of the
public sphere, building on Foucauldian ideas of discourse as a mediator of power. Members of
counterpublics would seek alternative discursive practices, in response to exclusion from
“wider” public spheres. Fraser (1990, pp. 61-62) stated that counterpublics have developed as
a result of the exclusionary nature of the liberal public sphere. For example, how women who
have been excluded from the public sphere, on the basis of their gender, instead have resorted
to “spheres of domesticity and motherhood” as a discursive arena. Other historically
marginalised groups have similarly resorted to other “private” arenas. Because these alternative
publics are constituted by marginalised groups, Fraser proposed to label them subaltern
counterpublics (ibid., p. 67). She argued that there not only are many competing public spheres,
with a plethora of competing interests, but that this is desirable in an egalitarian society (ibid.,
pp. 69-70). Subaltern counterpublics can hence function as a place for subordinated groups to
mobilise and contest dominant discourses or power structures (Holm 2019, p. 19). As a venue
of contestation, their function is usually twofold. By using outward-oriented activities, they can
attempt to target or influence dominant publics, to compete with dominant discourses and try
to contest them (Fraser 1990, p. 68), often in public spaces where there is possibility for
interaction across publics (Holm 2019, p. 19). Inward-oriented aspects of the counterpublic are
on the other hand used as “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social
groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses, which in turn permit them to formulate
oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (Fraser 1990, p. 67). We
will return to the twofold function of counterpublics in the analytical framework.

Recent studies have suggested that the concept of subaltern counterpublic is too narrow, in that
it does not fully encompass the variety of counterpublics. Holm (2019, p. 39) states that focus
has mostly been on studying “progressive” counterpublics, constituted by historically
marginalised groups, and their struggle in relation to dominant publics. Holm and others are

                                                                                               12

now putting focus on privileged groups and how they work to maintain power. Specifically,
her study shows how an anti-progressive counterpublic utilises online platforms, to forward a
political agenda which supports their already privileged position. The concept of non-subaltern
counterpublic has been proposed by Holm (ibid.) as useful for understanding these dynamics.
By doing this, we focus more on how counterpublics can perceive subordination in relation to
dominant publics, as Asen (2000, p. 427) has argued, allowing for analysis of non-subaltern
and anti-progressive publics which will be the focus for this thesis. Nonetheless, the term non-
subaltern does not merely suggest that a specific group experiences subordination when they
in fact are not in such a position relative to other groups, but it is used to describe a public
which is in actuality in a position of privilege.

Non-subaltern, anti-progressive counterpublics might however be excluded from dominant or
mainstream publics due to political incompatibilities. Holm argues that the relevance of
including and studying these as counterpublics lies in how privilege is reproduced and thus
used to target or challenge dominant publics (2019, p. 13). Although counterpublics associated
with MRA and the Manosphere would rather state that women (and feminists) are the ones in
power in modern society (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020, p. 1918), it is still relevant for this
analysis to consider their structural privilege as men in a patriarchal society. From previous
research we also know that certain online environments support a specific kind of toxic
masculinity, meaning that male privilege is specifically reproduced in this context (Massanari
2017).

This study aims to contribute to our understanding of how privileged groups act in relation to
dominant discourses that they perceive as threatening to their position. In this way, our interest
lies in how anti-progressive counterpublics are contesting mainstream discourses as a way of
maintaining or defending their privilege. We understand their process of contestation as having
two sides, consisting of actions that are either inward - or outward-oriented. How anti-
progressive counterpublics dynamics function in an online environment is of special interest,
as shown in how online environments are becoming increasingly important as public, political
venues. The following section is devoted to the concept of platform affordances, which is useful
for understanding how online publics relate to online platforms.

                                                                                             13

Platform Affordances

Online discourses are inevitably mediated by different online platforms. In order to understand
them, we therefore need to look at how they are affected by these platforms. Gillespie (2010)
writes about “platform politics”, suggesting that the term platform bears a certain significance
for how online communication is moderated. Rather than simply being an open and neutral
space for communication, Gillespie urges us to consider the political and economic reasoning
behind calling something a “platform”. He uses the example of YouTube to explain how
companies behind such platforms use the term strategically, stating that rebranding the site as
a platform allowed the company to be positioned “between user-generated and commercially-
produced content, between cultivating community and serving up advertising, between
intervening in the delivery of content and remaining neutral” (p. 348). Gillespie points to how
platforms have the potential to shape how users interact with a website, which brings us to the
concept of affordances.

Hutchby (2001, p. 444) argues that “affordances are functional and relational aspects which
frame, while not determining, the possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object.”
Affordances thus shape user behaviour in relation to artifacts (Bucher and Helmond 2018, p.
3). It has been conceptualised as “the range of functions and constraints that an object provides
for, and places upon, structurally situated subjects” (Chouinard and Davis 2016, p. 241).
Technological affordances are hence understood as the possibilities and restrictions that emerge
from interaction with a certain technology, in this case certain platforms (Azad and Faraj 2013,
p. 5). Considering how developments in technology always restructure how we utilise it, this
is not so different from using other types of media or structures to communicate. Neither is our
behaviour determined by affordances per se, but they can provide the structure for how we
engage with it (boyd 2010, p. 15). Hutchby (2001, p. 448; 2014, p. 2) argued that affordances
both have functional and relational aspects. They are functional in that they enable or constrain
certain actions (Hutchby 2001, p. 448), which in the case of platforms is a result of design and
governance (Holm 2019, p. 57). They are however relational in the sense that they are given
meaning in relation to the user, seen in how affordances are perceived as enabling or
constraining, but also in how they were designed with specific intentions (Hutchby 2001, p.
448).

                                                                                            14

Recent studies of online communities suggest that we look closely at the role of affordances,
particularly in contexts where a culture of toxicity has been established. Massanari’s (2015,
2017) studies of communities on Reddit show that some aspects of Reddit’s affordances have
enabled a misogynistic culture. She uses the phrase “toxic technocultures” to refer to the
typically harsh and male-centred culture seen on for example Reddit, 4chan and Twitter (2017,
p. 333). In the case of the Gamergate controversy, lack of accountability is pointed out as a
contributing factor to the continued harassment of women in the gaming industry. As
Gamergate was a “leaderless” community, and because they used platforms that allowed for
use of pseudonyms or complete anonymity, this hindered anyone from being held accountable
for their harassment campaigns. An important difference between for example Reddit and
8chan, is Reddit’s system of moderators within each smaller community, or subreddit, and that
Reddit users have pseudonyms rather than being fully anonymous. This should suggest that
discussions on Reddit are somewhat more controlled by the moderators, but this does not seem
to always have the effect that was wished for (pp. 334 - 335). This is an example how both
functional and relational affordances provide restraints and opportunities for a community.

In the case of the subreddit called /r/thefappening, centred on sharing and discussing leaked
nude photos of female celebrities, Massanari points to Reddit’s algorithm. When new photos
were shared and then upvoted by users, these ended up on the Reddit “homepage” (/r/all) which
could be seen by everyone visiting the site. Thus, the community grew quickly, and the images
were widely spread around the internet (p. 335). In a more general analysis of Reddit’s so-
called “platform politics”, i.e. the combination of a platforms design, norms and policies,
Massanari concludes that a lack of moderation in combination with Reddit’s karma system for
upvoting posts, have created a sense of a democratic and free community. However, while
remaining “neutral” in relation to the site’s more controversial content, Reddit has instead
fostered a culture of toxicity. The ways in which for example Reddit has been shown to
indirectly support anti-progressive and anti-egalitarian groups, displays the importance of
understanding how online based counterpublics are shaped by platform affordances. Much like
Massanari demonstrates that certain platform affordances had an impact on discursive
formation within the Reddit community, we can expect that other platforms will affect online
communities by either enabling or constraining certain behaviour.

Because we have seen that platform affordances affect discourse within online publics,
affordances should in turn affect the dual function of counterpublics, i.e. as both outward- and

                                                                                           15

inward-oriented discursive spaces (Asen 2000; Fraser 1990). The inward-oriented function of
counterpublics is, as described above, focused on formulating counterdiscourses within the
community. Both Twitter and mgtow.com could potentially be used by the MGTOW
counterpublic for inward-oriented activities, as both provide tools for communicating within
the counterpublic. The second, outward-oriented function, differs in that the focus is on
communication and interaction with other publics. We might expect that Twitter allows for
communication with other publics in a way that the MGTOW-forum does not. Since it has been
shown that Twitter’s inclusive design can enable a reproduction of existing privilege (Holm
and Castro, 2018), it is especially interesting to explore whether Twitter as a platform enables
counterpublics’ this outward-oriented function.

The Affordances of Association, Anonymity and Extreme Public Expression

There are three affordances derived from previous research, that are deemed central specifically
for how online platforms affect anti-progressive counterpublics. These are association,
anonymity and extreme public expression. Firstly, Treem and Leonardi (2013) describe the
affordance of association as either consisting of social ties between individuals, or as ties
between a user and the content that they post (p. 143). Social connections are at the very centre
of online platforms and will therefore have implications for both users and other visitors to a
particular website. This will affect how “socialization, knowledge sharing, and power
processes” take place on the platform (Treem & Leonardi 2013, p. 143). As shown above,
Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) suggest that discussions within the MGTOW counterpublic are
primarily focused on identity-building, in line with how the exchanging of ideas is seen as a
central function of counterpublics. Association is additionally made possible through online
platforms despite individuals being geographically distant from each other (Holm 2019, p. 59).
The Manosphere has been described as a partly organised and “networked” community, in
which individuals are able to find a sense of commonality in shared experiences (Marwick and
Caplan 2018, p. 543). Other studies show how men interested in MRA ideologies are able to
connect with like-minded people through online communities with very specific, normative
structures (Banet-Weiser and Miltner 2016, p. 173). Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) have
further shown that MGTOW rely on storytelling for creating a sense of community, why the
affordance of association will be relevant to study in relation to this particular counterpublic.

                                                                                              16

On both Twitter and the MGTOW website there are several possible ways of communicating
and connecting with other users. On Twitter (twitter.com), posting ‘tweets’ is the primary way
of communicating a message, which can be ‘liked’ and commented on by your followers. When
it comes to connecting directly with other users, there is the option of direct messages, but there
is also the possibility to ‘retweet’ another user and thereby connect with them through their
own post. Another possibility is to quote parts of a tweet and include this in one’s own tweet.
Users can also utilise the hashtag function in order to connect their own post to others that are
addressing similar subjects. There are hence multiple ways in which Twitter as a platform
allows for association. On the MGTOW website on the other hand, you can primarily engage
with other users by posting in a thread on a particular subject, either by starting a thread of your
own or by replying to an existing one. Much like on Twitter, users can also connect with others
by ‘following’ another profile or by sending a direct message. Users also have the option to
upvote a post, most likely as a way of communicating approval of the post in question. In sum,
the affordance of association is arguably central for both of these platforms.

Secondly, the affordance of anonymity has been found to play an important role for the
development of different kinds of anti-progressive groups online. Anonymity reduces the risk
for individuals in participating in anti-progressive discourse, and enables confrontation with
opponents (Holm 2019, p. 164). It has also been found that anonymity can stand in the way of
accountability within a community, because it prevents personal responsibility (Trice and Potts
2018, p. 7-8). The use of pseudonyms, rather than complete anonymity, can further allow for
individuals to gain a reputation within a community on a certain platform (Massanari 2015, p.
7). Having the possibility to be anonymous or to use a pseudonym can also invoke a sense that
you are freer to express extreme or discrepant opinions, or to voice an opinion on a
controversial matter (Chatzakou et al. 2017, p. 4). These are factors that seem to have fostered
anti-progressive mobilisation.

On Twitter, many users choose to have their real name visible either in the name of their profile,
or by including it in their profile ‘biography’, along with other personal information such as
occupation, age, and nationality. However, it is equally possible to be completely anonymous,
by simply not attaching any personal information to your profile. In order to post or
communicate through Twitter in any way, you however need to be logged into an account, why
it might be argued that users on this platform always use pseudonyms to some extent as they
are connected to a certain profile. The same goes for mgtow.com; although you are able to read

                                                                                               17

posts while not logged in, you need to access a profile in order to either post a thread, reply to
one, or to send direct messages. However, unlike Twitter, all of the users on this platform seem
to choose to be anonymous, or rather to use a pseudonym. Nonetheless, many provide some
personal information in their biographies, much like on Twitter. Thus, both mgtow.com and
Twitter allow for a certain degree of anonymity in their users, why it is highly relevant to study
how this affordance affects counterpublics that use them.

Finally, how a platform is moderated can bear significance for behaviour, especially when there
is a lack of moderation (see Geiger 2016, Massanari 2017), which will be referred to as the
affordance of extreme public expression. From previous studies we have learned that
differences in platform moderation and design will foster an environment where specific
actions or subjects of conversation are deemed possible or suitable (Massanari 2017). The
content of an online platform can be more or less controlled by a group of moderators, and the
manner in which discussion is controlled in this way affects the discourse within that platform.
Massanari (2017) points to how in the case of Reddit, toxic technocultures can be enabled by
a lack of accountability stemming from a lacking moderation on the platform. In the case of
Reddit, controversial material could even be passively promoted by the platform, if appearing
on the front page as a consequence of heightened activity surrounding a particular subreddit
(which is what happened to leaked images during “The Fappening”). If this material is not
removed by moderators, certain content and jargon is passively promoted by the platform. In
this sense, controversial themes can be “allowed” by the platform as a consequence of its
design, which in turn might foster a permissive attitude towards controversial material or
extreme views amongst members (Massanari 2017).

Twitter’s rules and policies prohibit any threat or glorification of violence, any abuse or
harassment, sexual violence, child sexual exploitation, promotion of self-harm or suicide.
(Twitter Help Center, 2020). Twitter’s ‘content moderators’ reportedly review a vast amount
of footage, videos and written material with prohibited content each day. Moderators describe
how they are “haunted” by what they have seen; a consequence of both the sheer amount of
material reviewed, and the extreme nature of this material (such as violence, pornographic
material, and images and videos depicting abuse) (Cabato, Dwoskin and Whalen 2019).
Twitter, like most larger websites, also relies on automated algorithms to filter out unwanted
content. It is however not entirely clear how this automated moderation operates, or its
consequences (Geiger 2016, p. 788). As can be read on the “Help Center” site on Twitter:

                                                                                             18

“People are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, as long as
they’re not violating the Twitter Rules”.

The website mgtow.com, on the other hand, is a much smaller platform with a significantly
lower number of active users. The policy for prohibited content and moderation is somewhat
unclear, and only stated in a post from when the forum was first launched. Jones, Trott and
Wright (2020) have however described the ways in which discussions on the forum are
seemingly controlled. The “policy” states that unlike other platforms, the forum will not be
policing any content. However, “[t]otally inappropriates (like suggested violence) will be
unapologetically deleted”. The founder of the platform, referred to as “Keymaster”, is no longer
active on the forum. The consequence is seemingly that users depend on self-moderation.
Nonetheless, a keyword filter stops usage of certain words (resulting in members trying to
avoid this filter by purposely misspelling or censoring prohibited words) (ibid., pp. 916-917).
If someone suspects that a thread has been written by either a woman (as they are not allowed
on the platform) or a “troll” (i.e. someone who attempts to provoke or sabotage the forum), it
can be “quarantined” in what is referred to as the “Litter Box”. It is however unclear whether
this function is currently in use, since the last thread that was added to the “Litter Box” was
posted almost a year ago at the time of writing. As both MGTOW and other groups within the
Manosphere has previously been shown to promote certain violent language, it is of interest
for this analysis to consider the ways in which the affordances of platforms related to
moderation affects this counterpublic.

Analytical Framework

Given the theoretical background presented above, the following section will be devoted to an
outline of the analytical framework. A first look at the material, where some preliminary
patterns and themes were identified, has guided the construction of this framework. The
analytical framework is based on the conceptualisation of the dual nature of counterpublics as
described by Fraser (1990). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the material that was
gathered with netnographic methods, i.e. through a kind of online participant observation. In
the following section, a number of analytical questions will be presented to help structure the
analysis according to the two counterpublic functions (the analytical questions are presented in
Table 1 below). After the data collection process, the material was sorted and analysed

                                                                                           19