How Male Grievance Fuels Radicalization and Extremist Violence
Recent analysis of these digital environments reveals how the sense of male victimhood is emotionally and politically mobilized. Men are portrayed as being unfairly treated by feminists, governments or shifting social norms. This then helps transform personal setbacks into symbolic grievances. These grievances are organized into calls for action. In some cases, this pathway leads individuals toward explicitly extreme ideologies that draw on themes of gendered grievance, while for others, it manifests in more diffuse forms of anti-institutional or misogynistic extremism.
Aggrieved masculinity, a mechanism I’ve identified in my recent work, is a dynamic state of identity threat in which men perceive themselves as falling short of idealized masculine norms. When social structures no longer affirm those norms, feelings of inadequacy are interpreted as injustice. This state can intensify when social comparison, institutional distrust or status anxiety are present. It is not simply about believing that something has been lost, but about feeling morally entitled to reclaim it.
Another mechanism is the belief that men, as a group, are being unfairly treated across society—from education and family law to media representation. This perceived victimhood becomes a moral narrative that reframes male suffering as evidence of systemic bias. These beliefs do not arise in isolation; they are shaped by digital content ecosystems that validate frustration and attribute blame.
What makes these mechanisms so powerful is their capacity to normalize extremist worldviews. Podcasts, influencers and lifestyle channels blend male grievance with ideological cues to include anti-feminism, anti-government sentiment, and nostalgia for traditional hierarchies. Without ever using the language of extremism, they cultivate an underlying worldview: that something has been taken from men, and someone needs to pay.
This dynamic is not limited to incels or adolescents. While teenage boys are often the focus of concern, adult men both create and engage with this content. The reach is wide, and the appeal is adaptive. Increasingly, radicalization begins not with ideology, but rather, identity.
These mechanisms should not be used to pathologize all men or paint masculinity as inherently problematic. Many men are actively challenging misogyny, promoting gender equality and creating spaces for healthier forms of masculinity. The concern is not masculinity itself, but the way certain grievance narratives are weaponized to serve divisive and extremist goals.
So how can these mechanisms inform prevention? First, male grievance must be recognized as a psychological and social process rather than dismissed as a fringe ideology. Experiences of frustration, insecurity or status anxiety are common and do not inherently signal risk. Understanding this can expand how policymakers and practitioners approach radicalization. We need to consider the emotional and identity-based needs that hateful narratives fulfil. That means investing in alternative spaces where men can explore questions of identity, vulnerability and personal development without being exploited, similar to the work done by community organizations such as The Man Cave.
Second, more public discourse is needed to distinguish legitimate male struggles—many of which have devastating consequences and remain under-addressed—from grievance narratives that symbolically reframe these struggles as collective injustice. The challenge is not that men are expressing frustration, but that some narratives channel that frustration into resentment and violence. These stories offer identity and meaning, and when they are built around loss, betrayal and restoration, they become powerful means for extremist mobilization. Understanding these mechanisms can help explain how radicalization happens, why certain messages resonate, and what can be done to disrupt their symbolic logic. In that understanding lies the opportunity to respond with nuance, clarity and care.
Haily Tran is a mixed-methods researcher in social psychology at Deakin University and Tackling Hate Lab, focusing on psychological drivers of online radicalization, violence and hate-based ideologies. This article is published courtesy of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
