Corporate masculinism

The last sentence of the definition carries an inversion that is easy to read past. The objective is the oppression of women, but the target of coercion is men. The movement operates on men, recruiting them, aggrieving them and organizing them, which makes men the instrument rather than the beneficiaries. Under the guise of men's rights names the method as well as the disguise, since the public claim and the stated objective are different things. Marsh identifies the interests directing it as the primarily criminal sexual sublation and sexual violation industries together with many state and religious bodies, and the purpose as maintaining the enslavement of women for domestic labour, baby production and the rape industry. She traces at least one descendant. An incel in her glossary is an acolyte of an offshoot of corporate masculinism which uses the dehumanization and debasement of women to manipulate men, with propaganda that encourages men to be anti-social and suicidal and incites acts of domestic terrorism, and which appears to her to be heavily influenced by rival state agencies. The reading is consistent across both entries. Men are the material being worked on, and the damage done to them, including the encouragement towards isolation and suicide, is part of the method rather than an unintended effect of it. Masculinism without the qualifier is simply male endo-idealism.

The men's rights movement dates its own origin to the 1970s and presents itself as a response to feminism. Academic treatments by Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner read it as a backlash formation driven by aggrieved entitlement, and more recent research on the manosphere maps radicalisation pathways through online communities including incel forums. Marsh's account diverges on agency and on who is being acted upon. She names industries and state and religious bodies as directing the movement rather than treating it as an organic reaction, and she places the men involved on the receiving end of the coercion rather than treating them as its constituency, which is a claim about sponsorship that the backlash literature does not make.