Romanian digital influencers hybridize global manosphere tropes with local religious revivalism, post-socialist entrepreneurialism, and aspirational Westernization to re-entrench gender hierarchies. Drawing on multimodal critical discourse analysis of digital content produced between 2022 and 2025 by four high-visibility Romanian platforms, I show that manosphere influencers deploy cross cultural code-switching (between Romanian and English) to reference ethno-religious authenticity, legitimate wealth accumulation (sacralized materialism) and frame market success as masculine duty (patriarchal entrepreneurship). They reframe financial self-optimization as redemptive mandate, cast market success as male identity, and use English jargon to signal cosmopolitan authority. The findings demonstrate how everyday sexism is normalized through a cyclical rhetoric of crisis and salvation that melds notions of predestination with hustle culture. By foregrounding discursive diffusion at the nexus of class, religion, and nation, the article advances scholarship on masculine identity formation in post-communist Europe.
AlbuM. (2017). Romanian values and behavior from the point of view of cultural dimensions according to Hofstede’s method. In BoldeaI.SigmireanC. (Eds.), Debating globalization: Identity, nation and dialogue. Section: Social sciences (pp. 148–152). Arhipelag XXI Press. https://www.asociatia-alpha.ro/gidni/04-2017/GIDNI-04-Socs.pdf
2.
BaderS.PetroviciI.SîrbC. (2019). Active citizenship and hate speech on social media in the context of Romanian family referendum. Postmodern Openings, 10(3), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/80
3.
BăluțăI. (2016). Women and the family in the late nineteenth-century Romanian feminist press: Defining alternative gender roles. Journal of Family History, 41(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363199015617474
4.
BartosS. E.PhuaV. C.AveryE. (2010). Differences in Romanian men’s online personals by sexualities. Journal of Men’s Studies, 17(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1702.145
CîmpianV.IancuI. (2023). Framing gender in Romanian 2019’s presidential elections: A comparison between broadsheet and tabloid content newspapers. Information & Media, 96, 95–118. https://doi.org/10.15388/im.2023.96.68
10.
CurseuP. L.Pop-CurseuI. (2018). Gender in the afterlife: An exploration of dynamic gender stereotypes in the epitaphs of the merry cemetery of Săpânța. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1436. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01436
11.
DayterD.RüdigerS. (2022). The language of pick-up artists: Online discourses of the seduction industry. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003041313
12.
DoiciarC.CrețanR.. (2025). Class and gender violence: Understanding a case of wealthy (online) influencers and misogyny. Societies,15(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15020036
FominaV. (2020). How to earn a million in the glory of god? Ethics and spirituality among orthodox entrepreneurs in contemporary Russia. Anthropological Quarterly, 93(2), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2020.0025
16.
GingD. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401
17.
GingD.LynnT.RosatiP. (2019). Neologising misogyny: Urban Dictionary's folksonomies of sexual abuse. New Media & Society, 22(5), 838–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819870306
HaslopC.RingroseJ.CambazogluI.MilneB. (2024). Mainstreaming the manosphere’s misogyny through affective homosocial currencies: Exploring how teen boys navigate the Andrew Tate effect. Social Media + Society, 10(1), 20563051241228811. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241228811
20.
HearnJ. (2019). So what has been, is, and might be going on in studying men and masculinities? Some continuities and discontinuities. Men and Masculinities, 22(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x18805550
21.
HowToManro. (n.d.). HowToMan: Ghid complet pentru bărbați [HowToMan: Complete guide for men]. Retrieved March 15, 2025, from. https://www.howtoman.ro/
JewkesR.MorrellR.HearnJ.LundqvistE.BlackbeardD.LindeggerG.GottzénL.SikweyiyaY.GottzénL. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 17(Suppl. 2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094
24.
JoyP.HammondB.HammondC.BonardiO.WassefK.FerlatteO. (2024). Pulling at all threads: Reflections on using multimodal critical discourse analysis within arts-based health research. Qualitative Health Research, 10497323241307893. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241307893
25.
KollerV.KrendelA.AistonJ. (2023). The language of gender-based separatism: A comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009216890
26.
KrendelA. (2023). Self-help and masculinity: Speech acts in an online men's group. Pragmatics and Society, 14(6), 844–868. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21075.kre
27.
KressG. R.Van LeeuwenT. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold Publishers.
28.
LoghinL. (2023) Fara sens Tv (Director). Cum Devii Barbatul Ideal In 2023? Loren Loghin Expune Adevarul Brutal! ( Fara Sens Tv) [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnLngousbgA
29.
MarwickA. E.CaplanR. (2018). Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568
MesserschmidtJ. W.MessnerM. A. (2018). Hegemonic, nonhegemonic, and ‘new’ masculinities. In MesserschmidtJ. W.MartinP. Y.MessnerM. A.ConnellR. (Eds.), Gender reckonings: New social theory and research (pp. 35–56). New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwtb3r.7
32.
NichiforF.MarianA.-L.TitS.-M. (2023). Predictors of bullying among athletes in the Romanian context. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(10), 2046–2062. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13100145
33.
NorocelO. C. (2010). Romania is a family and it needs a strict father: Conceptual metaphors at work in radical right populist discourses. Nationalities Papers, 38(5), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2010.498465
34.
NorocelO. C. (2015). The panoptic performance of masculinity for the Romanian ethno-nationalist project: Disciplinary intersections in populist radical right print media. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 2(1–2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.11116/jdivegendstud.2.1-2.0143
PojogaM. (2022). Misfits and troubled men: Masculinity and violence in Romanian socialist cinema. Metacritic Journal for Comparative Studies and Theory, 8(1), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.24193/mjcst.2022.13.11
37.
RenkinH. Z. (2016). Biopolitical mythologies: Róheim, Freud, (homo)phobia, and the sexual science of Eastern European otherness. Sexualities, 19(1–2), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460714550908
38.
RibeiroM. H.BlackburnJ.BradlynB.De CristofaroE.StringhiniG.LongS.GreenbergS.ZannettouS. (2021). The evolution of the manosphere across the web. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 15(1), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18053
39.
RothermelA.-K. (2023). The role of evidence-based misogyny in antifeminist online communities of the 'manosphere. Big Data & Society, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221145671
40.
RubioloC. (2016). The ambivalent autonomy of mobile ‘pocăiți’ between Vicovu de Sus, Romania and Turin, Italy after 1989. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia, 61(2), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1515/subbs-2016-0011
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
TrifanE. (2023). Searching for authenticity: Critical analysis of gender roles and radical movements in personal development practices in contemporary society. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia, 68(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.2478/subbs-2023-0003
45.
TrofimovV. (2019). Stop it, f*ggot! producing East European geosexual backwardness in the drop-in centre for male sex workers in Berlin. Anthropological Journal on European Cultures, 28(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.3167/ajec.2019.280106
Van ValkenburghS. P. (2018). Digesting the red pill: Masculinity and neoliberalism in the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 24(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18816
48.
WodakR. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In WodakR.MeyerM. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n4
