How the BBC Dehumanizes Men – The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

The BBC recently published a piece titled “Why money and power affect male self-esteem.” On the surface, it reads like a sober exploration of changing gender roles. But look closer, and it quickly unravels into something else entirely — a sleek, patronizing autopsy of male identity dressed up as empathy. The framing is manipulative, and the tone is quietly derisive.

The men interviewed aren’t treated like human beings. They’re exhibits, grunted examples of everything “wrong” with modern masculinity. Their quotes, many of them raw and searching — about feeling emasculated, aimless, mocked — are served up like punchlines in a dark comedy. One man admits that being a stay-at-home dad makes others see him as “some feminine dude.” Another says his family members call him “the house b***h.” But instead of treating these as cries for dignity, or even direction, the BBC frames them as relics of a bygone era. The implication is clear: these men are not misunderstood; they’re malfunctioning. Their confusion isn’t a signal of cultural whiplash. It’s weakness. Their pain? A programming error. Everything would be fine if they’d just reboot their expectations and update their firmware.

And that’s the game. Essentially, depict male struggle as evidence of male weakness. Gloss over the decades of messaging that helped cause it.

Let’s not forget that outlets like the BBC, the Guardian, NPR, and HuffPost spent years pumping out “toxic masculinity” thinkpieces like factory smoke. They told young men their ambition was predatory, their sexuality suspicious, their protectiveness oppressive. They told them the future was female, and that they’d better learn to sit quietly in it. Every male archetype was deconstructed, laughed at, or criminalized — unless, of course, it could be repackaged in softer, more manageable terms. “Caring masculinity.” “Feminist men.” Less muscle power, more mascara.

Meanwhile, what was happening in the real world?

Male suicide rates spiking. Male unemployment rising. College enrollment cratering. Young men dropping out of education, relationships, and ambition — not because they’re lazy or entitled, but because the social contract has changed, and they’ve been shut out of the new one.

This isn’t a tantrum. It’s an eviction notice.

And yet, when men finally speak up — like the ones in this BBC piece — they’re framed in a rather pathetic light. Symbols of a fragile masculinity that just can’t handle strong, empowered women.

Imagine, just for a moment, if a man wrote an op-ed claiming that women lose their sense of identity when they become the primary breadwinner. That their femininity falters. That they struggle with attraction, start resenting their partners, and quietly sabotage the relationship. He’d be branded a sexist, accused of retrograde thinking, and perhaps even blacklisted by the publication that ran it. Would the piece be shared by BBC News? Of course not. It would be torched. I know this because I’ve lived it. Last year, I wrote a piece for Newsweek suggesting that Taylor Swift might not be the best role model for young girls. I received death threats. I was called a misogynist by multiple outlets, all for questioning a billion-dollar pop icon.

That’s the asymmetry.

You can dissect men’s pain with a scalpel, call it insight, and get applauded for your bravery. But critique the sacred cow of female empowerment, and you’re burned at the digital stake.

The BBC article’s core assumption is that this male identity crisis is self-inflicted. That it’s one big sulk because the boss-babe era has finally arrived. But that’s not analysis. That’s ideological projection. What it fails to confront is the material truth: Most men don’t care if their partner earns more. They care that they’re no longer valued. That they’re told their instincts — to protect, to lead, to provide — are signs of oppression. That their presence is conditional, and their failure expected. This is what happens when you remove cultural scaffolding and replace it with slogans and feel-good mantras.

The framing of the article is revealing: women “rise,” men “struggle.” Women “empower,” men “malfunction.” One gender gets a narrative of progress. The other gets a therapy session and a scolding. The solution, says the author, is “caring masculinities” and housework. As if you can mop your way back to relevance. As if folding laundry is the new frontier of male purpose. As if what these men really needed was better vacuuming habits, not meaning, stability, or something real to fight for. This isn’t journalism. It’s PR for a worldview that broke the very men it now pretends to care about.

The author also discusses how men need new role models, which is ironic considering that any man who dares to step outside the prescribed box gets slapped down. Say the wrong thing and you’re a misogynist. Express real pain and you’re “fragile.” Try to lead, and you’re a patriarch. There’s no winning. The media class helped create this crisis. They built it with articles, op-eds, and smug little segments about how men must evolve. Now they’re standing at the wreckage, wondering why so many men are depressed, angry, and silent. This isn’t “toxic masculinity.” It’s exhausted masculinity.

And it’s not getting better. Because the real message beneath the BBC’s fake concern is the same one men have been hearing for years:

“Man up — but not like that.”

READ MORE by John Mac Glionn:

The Southern Poverty Law Center Is the Real Hate Machine

Confessions of a Jimmy Fallon Fan

David Brooks Still Can’t Say the Word ‘God’