You Won't Have Me To Kick Around

But Klein merely shrugged his shoulders, adding he doesn’t expect the race to become a platform for sandbagging him. “I didn’t kick around Don Getty and Don Getty didn’t kick around Peter Lougheed,” he said, adding he won’t overtly support any candidate nor did he know who he’d vote for.

Still lying after all these years..... "But Getty ran a deficit," said Ralph Klein

Actually he didn't

Other accomplishments of the Getty Government include a strong record of fiscal management, self-government for Metis Settlements, private telelphone lines for rural Albertans, the election of Canada's only elected Senator, and the creation of Family Day.

It was, in fact, Klein's predecessor, Don Getty, who framed and launched Alberta's fiscal revolution. In the aftermath of the 1980s energy-price recession, Getty slashed public spending. In an April 2006 Edmonton Journal interview, Getty said, "(Klein) continued what we were doing. The debt and deficit was solved by God. Or Mother Nature, maybe. It was the price of oil, not any special creation."

The reality is that during the Getty era the price of oil had increased, steadily.

Getty inherited a deficit of $761 million in 1985-6,

and oversaw its rise to $3.4 billion in 1992-3.

Klein took over in 1993, and was running a surplus two years later, leading to Alberta's current status of having no net debt. Some people will point to oil prices collapsing in 1986 as the reason why Alberta started running deficits; they are wrong. Let's compare the price of oil during the Getty and Klein administrations:

Year	Getty	Year	Klein
1986	$14.64	1993	$16.74
1987	$17.50	1994	$15.66
1988	$14.87	1995	$16.75
1989	$18.33	1996	$20.46
1990	$23.19	1997	$18.97
1991	$20.19	1998	$11.91
1992	$19.25	1999	$16.55

During Deficit Don Getty's administration, the price of crude oil averaged $18.28. During Klein's first seven years, the time period where Klein moved Alberta from a debtor to a net creditor, the price of crude oil averaged $16.55. It is clear that the price of oil is not why Alberta runs surpluses.

The reality was that Getty was a lame duck Premier. The deficits were the costs of buying votes, building hospitals, seniors homes etc. that had been the Tories success model under Lougheed.

That and a few spectacular failures in diversification and the slogan of the Ralph team became; Getting Government out of the business of business. But it was all temporary.

The deficit plagued all of Canada, in fact it was a global phenomena. By 1995 it had hit home with the Federal Liberal government, and they began a slash and burn program of cutting funding to the provinces. Worsening deficits in Ontario but not Alberta.

Here the Ralph Revolution was about privatization, cutting public services, and creating a low tax regime. All the solutions of the neo-con Republican agenda from south of the Border. That is why the province ended up with a surplus. The oil industry had little to do with it, since the Tories had implemented a royalty holiday in 1985 in response to the NEP. Which had resulted in the initial deficit crisis.

Klein's government introduced legislation that required the government to balance its budget by 1996-97. To accomplish this, the Tories implemented severe expenditure cuts, government downsizing, and the privatization of some services. A series of severe expenditure cuts was met with little resistance from a population intent upon seeing its financial house put in order. At the same time, the government expanded government-run gambling, which proved to be a windfall. The cost cutting and the revenue generation succeeded, and thereafter the Tories recorded a series of budgetary surpluses. Their success had a wide influence on other provincial governments, which began to duplicate Alberta's cost-saving measures.

Ralph Klein's revolution has merely gone full circle, argues his old nemesis, former Liberal leader Nancy MacBeth. "He's had three back-to-back budgets that grew by close to 40% and now we're short of money," she shrugged in an interview. "The problem is that he can't blame the last ten years on (former premier) Don Getty. He's got his own record to deal with."

Ralph ran his campaign and subsequent elections always refering to the failure of the Getty Government as if it wasn't a Tory Government. He ran against Getty more than he ran against the opposition. The Ralph Revolution was about implementing a Republican program in Alberta abetted by the likes of the Fraser Institute and the National Citizens Coalition. It was never about the deficit or the debt. That was an excuse, just as was Ralph's constant blaming of Getty for his problems.

In Alberta, the decade began with the surprise resignation of Premier Don Getty in 1992. Getty was succeeded by former Calgary mayor and provincial environment minister Ralph Klein, whom the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party chose as leader in December 1992. In the provincial election that took place the next year, the Progressive Conservatives managed to remain in power by distancing themselves from the shortcomings of the Getty regime. The stage was set for what was to become known as the Klein Revolution (Lisac 1995).

When Ralph Klein took office from Don Getty in December 1992, Alberta had accumulated debt of nearly $6 billion, and the provincial Liberals under Laurence Decore were poised to form the next government. They were running against the Tories chiefly on the grounds of fiscal probity and smaller government. Against the odds, Klein was able to distance himself from the previous Conservative administration and to win the 1993 election using many of the policies advocated by Decore.

The new Conservative leader Ralph Klein campaigns on his charisma. (TV; runs 3:31)

"Go Ralph Go!" shouts the crowd of Ralph Klein supporters. During the 1993 election campaign, the new leader of the Alberta Conservatives is playing up his populist charm, making the most of photo-ops, and calling his party "Ralph's team" in an attempt to distance himself from former Conservative premier Don Getty.

The Calgary Sun - Alberta Tories on brink

Back in 1992, with Laurence Decore’s Liberals almost topping the polls and Premier Don Getty’s regime in chaos, Moore and a small group of other “true” Conservatives went to then-environment minister Ralph Klein and promised to deliver the support of at least 35 MLAs to Klein in a leadership bid.

Actually, Moore and his group put 37 MLAs behind Klein. Then came a razor-edge fight between Klein and Nancy Betkowski, who later showed her true colours by becoming leader of the provincial Liberals.

Moore, who was called on the carpet and chastised often by Getty for condemning that premier’s free-spending ways that eventually made Alberta into a debtor province for the first time since the Great Depression, had given Klein, and his eminence grise Rod Love a list of five commitments in return for the MLA support. They were:

• Cut the cabinet roughly in half to 15 ministers.
• Chop the civil service by at least 25%.
• Pass legislation to prevent ever running a deficit.
• Prevent the government from getting involved in money-losing private sector business enterprises.
• Cabinet ministers who did not operate within their budgets must be fired outright.
• Klein followed through on all those commitments, but only initially.

I will leave the last word to the editor of a rural weekly, the folks that are supposed to be the backbone of Ralphs world.

The lack of a plan has been evident for years
Rocky Mountain Outlook, Canada - 14 Sep 2006

By Carol Picard - Editor
Sep 14 2006

The recent admission by outgoing Premier Ralph Klein that the government had and has no plan for managing the precipitous growth of the province elicited gasps of amazement throughout the land. Such has been the sense of betrayal that even columnists at Alberta’s notoriously Conservative daily newspapers have now begun voicing serious criticism of the government — something virtually unheard of throughout the dozen-plus years of “Ralph’s World”.

Well, they’re a decade late and a dollar shy. The truth of the matter is, there never has been a plan — just a goal. And most Alberta voters — newspaper columnists included — have been caught up in the cult of Personality Politics.

Way back when, when Klein took over from Don Getty, he was hailed as a saviour of sorts, promising to deliver the province from a sea of red ink created by his predecessors. He and his ministers and MLAs proceeded to reduce the deficit and eliminate the debt in a slash-and-burn approach that voters elsewhere in the country couldn’t stomach when their own leaders attempted the same. Klein’s macro-economic analogy to the household finances appealed to the lowest common denominator, and was folksy enough to get heads nodding, enough to ensure him widespread support despite the pain.

There was nothing orderly about it, and no forethought at all was evident. To reduce education costs (seen as red ink on a profit-loss statement that had nothing to do with future planning or a healthy and civilized society) he eliminated kindergarten, assuring all that the government had “studies” showing that kindergarten was a useless frill, a theory that flew in the face of scientifically-based educational practice. He squeezed education dollars so hard students commonly attended classes of 30 to 40 students, even at the elementary level. No evidence it hurts them, the government cried, despite empirical evidence that said otherwise.

Capacity at universities was slashed — particularly in nursing and education — in an effort to save a buck, despite the looming reality of an aging baby boomer generation needing additional health care. Today we face shortages in such professions.

He blew up hospitals and closed beds, and today, in the face of huge growth, the medical system is limping. Even at the time, as patients lay on gurneys in hospital corridors for hours, as wait times in emergency wards increased into the double-digits, anyone who dared go public with their criticism was dubbed the “Victim of the Week” by our premier.

His arrogance towards those who disagreed with him was breathtaking, and examples abound, but his descent from King Ralph to today’s scapegoat should not take anyone by surprise. Today, the Emperor truly has no clothes.

And today, some of his henchmen are running willy-nilly around the province, trying to win support for their own bid to be premier. If not actively distancing themselves from Ralph, they are remarkably silent about their participation in the “no-plan” approach to government.

But Albertans as a pack have remarkably short memories and huge stomachs for betrayal. One of them will prevail and, as promised, become our next premier. Lucky us.

Also See:

Alberta

One Party State

Klein

Democratic Deficit

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Alberta, Dinning, Klein, PC, Calgary, PartyofCalgary, politics, leadership, Liberals, Conservatives, corporations, OnePartyState,Alberta, Lougheed, Getty, Oil, Planning, History, Politics, Economics, TarSands

Don Getty's Legacy

Today is Family Day in Alberta. A province wide holiday brought in by Premier Don Getty. It is his legacy. What is Chretien's? Or Ralph Klien's? They were after all Don's contemporaries and nemesis. And yet what did they do for the citizens, all the citizens. Nothing, nada, zip.

On the radio I heard the announcer prove his ignorance by thanking Ralph for todays day off. But such was not the case, Ralph had his chance to declare a holiday on Sept. 1 as the anniversary of Alberta's province hood, but failed to.

Family day was opposed by business interests which complained that would cost them money. When in reality it didn't. Another shopping day. What they lost in paying work place wages they made up in consumer spending. their wage slaves became their consumers with a commodity fetish.

But that same complaint did stop Ralph from declaring Sept. 1 a holiday. But then the fat boy who was King never played football. Peter Lougheed, and Don Getty, two Premiers did. As did our current Lieutant Governor; Normie Kwong. All three played for the Edmonton Eskimos.

Ralph listened to the business naysayers who run this province and capitulated.

His legacy is what? Defeating the deficit dragon.

Hmmm not so.

That was actually begun by Getty, Ralph inherited his program. Which was why in true Stalinist fashion he had to remake Don into the enemy, the bad guy, the Trotsky, who betrayed Alberta by running it into debt and deficit by trying to diversify the economy. A program begun by Lougheed. But a dream that failed and Getty inherited. But such was Lougheeds stature and reputation, Ralph and his neo-con advisor's could not touch him so they made Getty their scape goat.

Other accomplishments of the Getty Government ; a strong record of fiscal management, self-government for Metis Settlements, private telelphone lines for rural Albertans, the election of Canada's only elected Senator, and the creation of Family Day.

And Ralph inherited Senate Elections from Getty! A key plank of the Reform Party and the old Social Credit rump within the Alberta P C's.

Getty fumbled politically at the end of his Premiership but to be honest Ralph made him his political football, his scapegoat, his Trotsky, as he moved to rule the one party state with a new agenda, to create a Republican movement in Canada. Which was just another example of Ralph's ability at political plagiarism.

A political movement that was in direct opposition to Lougheeds Paternalistic State Capitalism. And one that failed.

See:

Don Getty

Ralph Klein

Alberta

Social Credit

Manning

Lougheed



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Peter Lougheed, Don Getty, Realph Klein, Alberta, Premier, PC, Conservatives, Tories, politics, family day, holidays, Canada,

Brand X

Rick Bell hits the nail on the head about our Brand X government and the party in charge.

a good assumption is many Albertans will simply cling to the Tory brand unless the actual Xs on the big day show something different. It's the brand. It has nothing to do with political philosophy. We have seen billions in boondoggles, an attitude of denial causing a building backlog you feel everyday you get out of bed. We've seen cutting and spending and behaviour that would be a firing offence elsewhere. We've smelled the stench of scandal and been served up arrogance as aggravating as anything Ottawa dishes out.

All we can hope for is that the stench from this dying corpse of a political regime disgusts the huge undecided vote in Alberta enough that it decides to NOT vote Tory.

The key to election-night victory could be the support of the large segment of undecided voters, said Lois Harder, who teaches political science at the University of Alberta. "The issue in a province with a long political dynasty and a healthy economy is whether people are going to be motivated to vote."

Thanks to Ed calling a winter election, lets hope it remains so damned cold that rural Tories decide to stay warm at home in front of their pot belly stoves.

That and let's hope the oil boys decide that the WildRoseAlliance is the place to park their votes splitting the right.

The Tory leader found a more welcoming crowd during coffee shop meet-and-greets in Wetaskiwin and Calmar. But when his bus pulled into Drayton Valley for a chat to about 100 townsfolk at the 55+ Recreation Centre, he faced some tough questions from oil and gas workers upset with his royalty plan.

Ken Cameron, a 52-year-old co-owner of an oil and gas services company, told Stelmach that industry workers have been crippled by the soaring Canadian dollar and Ottawa's decision to tax income trusts. But "the final nail in the coffin" has been Stelmach's new royalty framework.

"I think the premier and (Energy Minister) Mel Knight are totally out of touch with conventional oil and gas," said Cameron.

Stelmach has vowed to review his royalty plan to ensure there's no "unintended consequences" for smaller oil and gas companies.

The review had better produce some major changes or Stelmach's lost another vote, this one from Dave Humphreys, a 42-year-old vice-president of an oil and gas company who also pressed the Tory leader on the issue.

"I'm very worried about the economic impact on the community," Dave Humphreys, vice-president of an oil and gas firm, told Stelmach. "It's going to have a terrible rippling effect."

The rough receptions in Red Deer and Drayton Valley only add to what's already been a rocky start to Stelmach's first election campaign as premier, suggested Peter McCormick, political scientist at the University of Lethbridge.

"This is the part of the campaign that should be on auto pilot," McCormick said.

"This was well set up to be a triumphant campaign, but it just isn't working."

If the Tories remain in power, after Stelmach's vote buying campaign let us hope it is with a decimated majority, with a balance of power in the Leg made up of the opposition parties. Now that would be usual for any other province, but highly unusual for Alberta.

Then the Tories would have to act like a government rather than as a feudal dynasty including having to have debates in the legislature and actually bringing budgets and bills to be voted on rather than passed 'in council' as they have done for the past twenty years.

Considering that this is the Party that had popularity ratings of 80-90% in past elections this poll does not bode well, despite the spin put on it by Dave Rutherford's right wing media mouthpiece;

CALGARY/AM770CHQR - The first poll of the provincial election campaign finds the conservatives are off to a good start and the opposition are yet to find traction.
Environics did a telephone survey February 1-4.
The Progressive Conservatives have the support of 52 per cent of decided voters across the province.
The Alberta Liberals come in at 25 per cent, the NDP ten per cent, the Green Party 7 per cent and the Wildrose Alliance 6 per cent.
19 per cent of respondants are undecided or chose not to answer the question.
Older and more affluent voters tend to back the tories while the liberals are more popular with younger voters and students.
The tories also have 48 per cent support in Calgary while the liberals are at 29 per cent.
It's not much different in Edmonton but in the rest of the province the tories jump to 57 per cent and the liberals drop to 19 per cent.

And Ed Stelmach's own poll numbers are even less than any other Tory leader, less than even the much maligned Don Getty.

That's what happens when a central campaign starts to fly off the rails. Ed's might be heading for a dry gulch even deeper than the one former Premier Don Getty's campaign crashed into in 1989. Like Stelmach, Getty made a string of money promises which he could not explain. They were deeply flawed as policy and made voters worry about debt.

Also, like Stelmach, Getty had no discernible vision for the province beyond providing something expensive to every group that might be upset.

It's all eerily familiar to veterans of that bizarre 1989 campaign.

Don Getty lost his own Edmonton Whitemud riding. Later he limped to a byelection victory in Stettler, and governed listlessly until his party ran him out of the leadership in 1992.

His only saving grace is that he is not alone in being a charismatically challenged leader.

A January opinion poll showed 28.5 per cent of Albertans think Stelmach would make the best premier, well in front of nearest rival, Liberal Leader Kevin Taft.

For some critics, the weakness in the polls is enough to compare Stelmach to Harry Strom, who was the leader of the Social Credit government when its 36-year dynasty was snuffed out by Peter Lougheed's Progressive Conservatives in 1971.

McCormick said there are some comparisons to be made -- Strom was a decent man in charge of a low-key government that was more progressive than it's remembered today.

"He just couldn't project it," McCormick said. "Where Stelmach is really lucky is, although he reminds us of Harry Strom, Kevin Taft doesn't remind us at all of Peter Lougheed."

tags
Alberta, Premier, Ed Stelmach,
election,PC, politics, Conservatives,media, politics, Alberta election,
Kevin Taft,
Alberta, Alberta Liberals,Alberta Election,

European court upholds Italy’s right to seize prized Greek bronze from Getty Museum, rejects appeal

Reporter Sookee Chung takes a photo of a sculpture titled “Statue of a Victorious Youth, 300-100 B.C.” at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles. A European court upheld Italy’s right to seize a prized Greek statue from the J. Paul Getty Museum in California, rejecting the museum’s appeal on Thursday and ruling Italy was right to try to reclaim an important part of its cultural heritage. 

(AP Photo/Nick Ut, File)

PUBLISHED: May 2, 2024 
By NICOLE WINFIELD

ROME — A European court on Thursday upheld Italy’s right to seize a prized Greek statue from the J. Paul Getty Museum in California, ruling that Italy was justified in trying to reclaim an important part of its cultural heritage and rejecting the museum’s appeal.

The European Court of Human Rights, or ECHR, determined that Italy’s decades-long efforts to recover the “Victorious Youth” statue from the Malibu-based Getty were not disproportionate.

“Victorious Youth,” a life-sized bronze dating from 300 B.C. to 100 B.C., is one of the highlights of the Getty’s collection. Though the artist is unknown, some scholars believe it was made by Lysippos, Alexander the Great’s personal sculptor.

The bronze, which was pulled from the sea in 1964 by Italian fishermen and then exported out of Italy illegally, was purchased by the Getty in 1977 for $4 million and has been on display there ever since.

The Getty had appealed to the European court after Italy’s high Court of Cassation in 2018 upheld a lower court’s confiscation order. The Getty had argued that its rights to the statue, under a European human rights protocol on protection of property, had been violated by Italy’s campaign to get it back.

The court ruled Thursday that no such violation had occurred.

“This is not just a victory for the Italian government. It’s a victory for culture,” said Maurizio Fiorilli, who as an Italian government attorney had spearheaded Italy’s efforts to recover its looted antiquities and, in particular, the Getty bronze.

The Getty has long defended its right to the statue, saying Italy had no legal claim to it.

Among other things, the Getty had argued that the statue is of Greek origin, was found in international waters and was never part of Italy’s cultural heritage. It cited a 1968 Court of Cassation ruling that found no evidence that the statue belonged to Italy.

Italy argued the statue was indeed part of its own cultural heritage, that it was brought to shore by Italians aboard an Italian-flagged ship and was exported illegally, without any customs declarations or payments.

After years of further legal wrangling, an Italian court in Pesaro in 2010 ordered the statue seized and returned, at the height of Italy’s campaign to recover antiquities looted from its territory and sold to museums and private collectors around the globe.

Thursday’s ruling by the Strasbourg, France-based ECHR was a chamber judgment. Both sides now have three months to ask that the case be heard by the court’s Grand Chamber for a final decision. But Thursday’s ruling was unanimous, with no dissenting judges, and the Grand Chamber can refuse to hear the case.

There was no immediate comment from the Getty, and its lawyers referred comment to the museum.

Italian Culture Minister Gennaro Sangiuliano praised Thursday’s decision as an “unequivocal ruling” that recognized the rights of the Italian state and its ownership of the statue.

“Following today’s ruling … the Italian government will restart contacts with U.S. authorities for assistance in the implementation of the confiscation order,” he said.

In a statement, he doubled down on Italy’s campaign to bring its looted treasures home, and noted that recently Italy has ceased cooperation with foreign museums that don’t recognize Italian legal confiscation orders.

Recently, Italy banned any loans to the Minneapolis Institute of Art following a dispute over an ancient marble statue believed to have been looted from Italy almost a half-century ago.

The Getty had appealed to the ECHR by arguing, among other things, that Italy’s 2010 confiscation order constituted a violation of its right to enjoy its possessions and that it would be deprived of that right if U.S. authorities carried out the seizure.

The ECHR however strongly reaffirmed Italy’s right to pursue the protection of its cultural heritage, especially from unlawful exportation.

“The court further held that owing, in particular, to the Getty Trust’s negligence or bad faith in purchasing the statue despite being aware of the claims of the Italian state and their efforts to recover it, the confiscation order had been proportionate to the aim of ensuring the return of an object that was part of Italy’s cultural heritage,” said the summary of the ruling.

It wasn’t immediately clear what would happen next, though Fiorilli said the Getty had exhausted legal remedies and it’s now for U.S. the courts to enforce the Italian confiscation order.

“It’s not about guaranteeing the right to property, it’s about guaranteeing the internationally recognized value of every nation’s right to protect its cultural patrimony,” Fiorilli told The Associated Press over the telephone.

The statue, nicknamed the “Getty Bronze,” is a signature piece for the museum. Standing about 5 feet (1.52 meters) tall, the statue of the young athlete raising his right hand to an olive wreath crown around his head is one of the few life-sized Greek bronzes to have survived.

The bronze is believed to have sunk with the ship that was carrying it to Italy after the Romans conquered Greece. After being found in the nets of Italian fishermen trawling in international waters in 1964, it was allegedly buried in an Italian cabbage patch and hidden in a priest’s bathtub before it was taken out of the country.

Italy has successfully won back thousands of artifacts from museums, collections and private owners around the world that it says were looted or stolen from the country illegally, and recently opened a museum to house them until they can be returned to the regions from where they were looted.

The most important work to date that Italy has successfully brought back is the Euphronios Krater, one of the finest ancient Greek vases in existence. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which purchased it for $1 million in 1972 from an art dealer later accused of acquiring looted artifacts, returned it to Italy in 2008.

In 2010, the same year that Italy ordered the “Victorious Youth” statue confiscated from the Getty, a criminal trial ended in Rome against the Getty’s former curator of antiquities, Marion True. After years of trial, the Rome court ruled that the statute of limitations had expired on charges that True received stolen artifacts. She has denied wrongdoing.

In 2007, the Getty, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to return 40 ancient treasures in exchange for the long-term loans of other artifacts. Similar deals have been reached with other museums.

Under the 2007 deal, the two sides agreed to postpone further discussion of “Victorious Youth” until the court case was decided.

Here's What Parents Need To Know About The "Manosphere" Of Far-Right Content Targeting Boys Online

BuzzFeed
Thu, April 25, 2024 



Here's What Parents Need To Know About The "Manosphere" Of Far-Right Content Targeting Boys Online


Recently, people have been talking a lot about a growing political divide that's splitting Gen Z along gender lines. Research suggests that around the world, women are becoming increasingly progressive while men are leaning more conservative — and some people say it's made dating even more nightmarish than usual.



Twitter: @jburnmurdoch

A few different theories could explain this ideological gender gap. Some think that young men are growing more conservative in response to the #MeToo Movement that empowered young women to speak out about sexual violence and inequality. Others suggest that right-wing attacks on women's rights, like the Dobbs decision that struck down Roe vs. Wade, have motivated women to move further left.

Then there's the theory that algorithmic filter bubbles split young men and women into distinct online environments that encourage political polarization. Personally, I think this theory makes a lot of sense because of the specific kinds of content that algorithms tend to surface to boys and young men.

Enter the "manosphere." The manosphere consists of a network of influencers (sometimes called "manfluencers") who target boys and young men online, often espousing misogynistic, anti-LGBT, and racist views. You've probably heard of one the most influential manosphere figures, Andrew Tate, who has been indicted on charges of sexual assault and human trafficking.




Boys don't have to do much to stumble upon this content. Recently, researchers at the Anti-Bullying Centre at Dublin City University set up accounts registered for boys aged 16 and 18. They found that both TikTok and YouTube Shorts suggested manosphere content to these brand-new accounts within the first half-hour of scrolling, in one case, as quickly as after just two minutes.Daniel Mihailescu / AFP via Getty ImagesMore

I'm curious about how parents of boys can have conversations with their sons about this divisive content, so I asked members of the BuzzFeed Community to share their experiences. I heard from a couple of parents and older siblings, and a number of Andrew Tate fans who called my question "garbage" (among other things I won't repeat). Then, Kaitlynn Mendes reached out.

Mendes is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Western University in Canada and the Canada Research Chair in Inequality and Gender. She's currently part of a team of researchers who are talking with teen boys about their experiences online, and she sat down for a call with me to tell me what she's learned from her studies and what parents need to know.

Mendes says that a lot of manosphere content centers on common anxieties among adolescent boys. It draws them in by presenting "easy" answers to complex problems like how to attract a mate. Mendes explains, "If you're a teenage boy, this is a really big time of change. You're feeling quite insecure about yourself, and you want to know how you can be sexually successful, romantically successful."


"And then you have these guys who are offering simple solutions. And some of the solutions are actually not terrible. They talk abut taking care of yourself, taking care of your body, taking pride in things like: make your bed, stand up straight. And I think those messages on their own are not bad messages."Ojos De Hojalata / Getty ImagesMore

Unfortunately, these initial, helpful messages lead to more harmful ideas. In particular, these creators endorse strict, traditional gender norms that can make young people feel like there's only one "right way" to be a man. Mendes explained, saying, "They seem to offer simple solutions for how to make a girl want you: Men are just this way, and women are just this way. If you really want to be successful, you have to act like the 'alpha man.' And if you want a 'high-value woman,' these are things that you have to do."

According to Mendes, the message can boil down to, "Forget about women as individuals. Treat all women as though they're they're the same. It also really paints them in quite a bad light. You know, like women are shallow, women are genetically disposed to seek out 'high-value men,' and they want the 'alpha men.'"

Manosphere creators often legitimize their beliefs about gender by couching them in scientific-sounding language, talking about "alpha males," "bonding theory," and other jargon. Mendes says, "They're drawing on scientific concepts that are real, but just not necessarily in the context of human relationships. So, it sounds convincing, and it sounds smart. Sometimes, they reference real academic publications or studies. It's just that they misconstrue what the study is actually about or what it's showing."


When it comes to the "alpha male" ideal, it should be noted that the concept of alpha males originated from a decades-old study of wolves in captivity. That study has since been discredited because wild wolves don't form that type of hierarchy and instead live in family units. So it turns out that one of the manosphere's favorite scientific-sounding ideas isn't even considered good science anymore.Maskot / Getty Images/MaskotMore

Still, manosphere influencers use this veneer of scientific certainty to present attraction as a one-size-fits-all formula, telling young men that the best way to attract a woman is to have a particular body fat percentage and use pickup artist techniques like negging — aka giving women backhanded compliments designed to make us feel insecure and thus crave male approval (massive eye roll). But the thing is, attraction is never this simple.



Twitter: @michelle_byoung

I have thought about this viral tweet about Jack Black just about every day since I first saw it because it's so true. And to her point, some of the things that men think make them more attractive to women can even be turn-offs (see: negging).

I asked Mendes if she thinks that manfluencers are giving bad advice about how to attract women, which keeps viewers wanting more. She responded, "I think you're right. I think the trick, though, is that they have to have enough things that may be working to keep them coming back." So the helpful "make your bed" type of advice normalizes the unhelpful stuff like "be mean to women and they'll like you for some reason," and it keeps boys coming back for another video or podcast or tweet.

In addition to science-y sounding words, manosphere creators also use particular slang. They talk about being "red-pilled," of high-value "Staceys" and "Chads," and denigrate men they deem to be not manly enough as "soyboys," "betas," and "cucks." Mendes also pointed out that many terms commonly used online today, like "snowflake" and "social justice warrior" have their roots in the manosphere.

She says, "Parents may hear it and think, 'Oh, it's just like the way that young people talk.' But it does come from these kinds of manosphere communities."

And the problem goes much deeper than people saying offensive things online. Tragically, this kind of rhetoric has been associated with real-life violence against women, as in the recent stabbings of six people in a mall in Sydney, Australia, where the killer's father told the media that his son was frustrated that he couldn't get a girlfriend. And in the case of a mass shooting last year at an Allen, Texas mall where the perpetrator was found to have posted far-right and incel content online prior to the attack. And in countless other instances of violence against women, trans people, and racial minorities.

Mendes says, "We have these people out there telling boys, 'These are the six steps you need to follow, and if you follow them, you'll be successful.' And so boys and men are following them. And then when they're not successful, they are angry. They're upset. They're confused. They don't understand. And in our society, we've taught men that anger and violence are like a legitimate way to prove your manhood or get what you want. And so it's no surprise that they're reacting in this way. It's very, very worrying."Joe Raedle / Getty ImagesMore

For parents who are concerned about what their sons see online, it's not enough to warn them about certain popular male-supremacy influencers. Mendes says, "It's not just the big-name people. There are lots of people every day who are trying to capitalize on some of these trends. This kind of content is everywhere. So it's not enough to just say, 'Well, I won't search for Andrew Tate,' because you can get this kind of advice through so many different influencers or content creators online."

And despite certain creators being occasionally deplatformed, Mendes doesn't have much faith in social media companies swooping in to remove problematic content. "Social media companies fundamentally are just trying to do whatever they can to keep people on their apps as long as possible. And so any kind of content that makes you feel something, whether it's intrigued or angry or excited, they're going to keep pushing that. Because as much as they say they care about us, they don't give a shit about us. They don't care about our mental health. They don't really care if there is extremist content out there as long as it's generating profit."

And according to Mendes, boys are being exposed to a lot of stuff on social media that might make them feel uncomfortable, but because of the way boys are socialized, it can be much harder for them to talk about it. She says, "Girls, for example, are quite happy to tell us about all the dick pics that they get sent from 40-year-old men that they don't ask for, and they're like, 'Oh, it's gross. It's disgusting.' Boys equally get sent a whole lot of unwanted nude images, but it's often from porn bots or people trying to catfish them. I do think boys have a harder time expressing disgust because they're not 'supposed' to. If you're supposed to be like 'a real man,' you're supposed to want to see sex and sexy images."




She says that boys also report routinely being shown videos of violent acts like animals being harmed and people being shot or hit by cars. In her research, girls don't report being shown this kind of violent content. She shares, "There was one focus group we did where one of the boys was talking about how he often sees videos of people getting shot and he's like, 'Yeah, you just get used to it.'"Isabel Pavia / Getty ImagesMore

So she suggests parents start conversations with their sons, but not by asking them if they've been exposed to harmful content. Instead, she says, "Ask them, 'What are you seeing that's weird, or that's strange?' Because some of what they're seeing is so normalized, they don't associate it as harmful." She says that, in her experience, boys are much more likely to describe toxic content as weird or strange than as upsetting.

"Then you can ask them, 'Do you know how to change the algorithm? If that's content that you don't want to see, what would you do? Do you know what to do?' And it might be different on different platforms. Ask, 'Is it something that you think is worth reporting?'" She also notes that this approach requires parents to really understand how social media works, which can be an obstacle for some but one that parents must overcome.

She also gives some examples of how she talks with her own sons about what they see online. "I have three boys, so I get them to show me the kind of stuff that they're watching, and then we talk about it. And it doesn't all have to be bad stuff. I might say, 'Hey, what are some followers that you like?'"

She also suggests keeping resources handy so kids know they can also call a hotline like Kids Help Phone or Kids in Crisis in case something comes up that they don't want to talk about with their parents.

Finally, Mendes warns that tech-based parental controls can't take the place of talking with your kids and helping them unpack what they're seeing online. "There is no one filter that you can put on your kids' phones to keep them safe. You have to recognize that when they're using social media, they're going to be exposed to certain risks. And I think the best thing you can do is equip them with skills and resilience to overcome the harm or the risks that they're seeing."




"Kids are really good at avoiding surveillance. They're good at bypassing parental filters and controls. When I was in the UK, I did a study with almost 600 teens. Over 40% of them told us they knew how to bypass all the parental filters and controls their parents put on their devices."Maskot / Getty Images/MaskotMore

For an example of what these conversations can look like, one parent in the BuzzFeed Community shared this story:

"I saw Andrew Tate's face on my 11-year-old son's YouTube once. He's a genuinely sweet and empathetic kid, so I wasn't super worried, but I asked what the video was. I remember it was something actually criticizing Tate. I asked my son if he's watched videos with him, and he said he's pretty much just occasionally seen his face. I told him not to listen to anything Tate said or watch him and that he's a horrible person. My son asked why. I don't really believe in lying to my kids, even at young ages, so I gently told him that Tate was the kinda guy who would lock women up at his house and not let them leave.

'Ohhh,' He said, 'like for sex stuff?'"Yeah, buddy, but you don't need more details than that, and it's time to change the subject. Just don't watch him or at least know better than to believe anything he says about women.'"

—Anonymous

Another parent shared:

"My wife and I are very certain our 8th and 9th grade boys have no real understanding of the manosphere, and that is completely intentional. They are exposed to very traditional gender role stereotypes (uncles who work construction jobs, aunts who are nurses and receptionists), but they are also equally exposed to very non-traditional gender roles by those same people and us. We are fortunate they seem grounded and are learning independence instead of feminine dependence and weaponized incompetence. I’m hopeful my 7th-grade daughter sees that and looks for a person to be equitable to her should she want a long-term relationship when she’s older."

—avidbuzzfeedreader

And an older sibling gave their perspective too:

"Not my son but my younger brother who I’ve looked after for a while. My brother grew up with a large group of friends that he regularly hung out with. Very suddenly, he stopped hanging out with them. I asked him why his friends hadn’t been around, and he told me they were now Andrew Tate supporters and would send him extremely misogynistic content. When they hung out in person, it wasn’t much better. His friends would joke that women belong in the kitchen, amongst other gross stereotypes. My younger brother told me he couldn’t be friends with them anymore after this. I feel extremely sad for him; the boys he considered brothers he can’t even recognize now, but I’m also proud of him for cutting toxic people out of his life."

—Anonymous

Now I'm curious: do you talk with the boys or young men in your life about what they see online? Share your experiences in the comments below!