229D. CNN's "62 Million" Misandry Campaign Has Unintended Effects

While doing research on the misandry epidemic scope and origins, Exibit A fell into my lap. Ironically, the results of these campaigns may have the opposite effect of what the sources want.

I will do my best to keep my analysis as apolitical as possible. This will require some gymnastics as the misandry epidemic seems to be amplified by highly political sources.

Back in March, which already seems like a long time ago, I became alarmed by what seemed like a huge spike in gender supremacist language on LinkedIn. I responded by explaining how anyone can quickly and objectively identify supremacist language, used by gender, racial/ethnic, religious, etc supremacists. Having the tools to identify supremacist (and associated hate) speech is the first step in pushing back against it.

Then a high quality survey on the topic dropped in the UK, showing that the extent of misandry in the UK was even greater than my estimates. You can read my analysis of that survey research here. The reseachers seemed to be attempting to quantify the spread of misogyny through UK society, given how hot a topic it has been of late on social media. They seemed shocked to find it was actually misandry that was exploding in society, while misogyny rates were relatively modest. This is contradictory to the cultural, governmental, political, news, and social media platform narratives and rules/laws.

Of course this caused me to be very curious as to what was really going on. I assumed that at least in part influence campaigns were involved, but it wasn’t clear why or from what sources. The key initial questions I wanted to answer were:

1. Did misandry just suddenly spread across society, or has it been creeping up on us for a while? The rate of spread can give us a lot of information regarding the threat. In epidemiology (the study of epidemics) we use the R Factor to determine how fast an epidemic is spreading. While normally we think of microbes when we talk about epidemics, mental illness can also spread similarly, especially during an influence campaign or existential crisis.

2. What role is social media playing? It seems like some gender supremacy messaging is getting massively boosted, while others are being suppressed. Is there a pattern?

3. Who is most vulnerable? Are some demographics more vulnerable to misandry than others? If so, is there a pattern?

When I started my meta research I didn’t know what answers I would arrive at, which is the ideal way to approach research. What I found out surprised me, and what I didn’t find out surprised me even more. What I mean here is that all the information we need to answer these questions should already be available. If it isn’t, that implies some large scale and organised censorship.

Tracking the Spread of Misandry

Tracking any source of morbidity or mental illness should be super easy in the Information Age. If I want to know if cars are safer or more dangerous, that’s easy to find out. The spread of obesity or dementia? No problem.

So it only took me a few minutes to find this study of what I was looking for from the USA’s National Institute of Health research database:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12015220/

This chart shows how much research has been published in various fields on both misandry and misogyny:

Now this is awkward. Those little blue dots are the studies of misandry. Those pink dots are the studies of misogyny, in log scale. So the top of the chart is 100 research studies. 10^0 = 1, 10^2= 100. So if we add up all the blue bars we get 8. If we add up all the pink bars we get ~600. That’s odd, it’s almost like researchers on gender hate didn’t want to know about misandry.

This chart shows the number of studies on misogyny and misandry per year, and which year they were done:

So for instance in 2023 there were over 100 studies of misogyny and two on misandry. This matches the 600 to 8 ratio in Figure 1 fairly closely when you add up the values for each year. Even more interesting is that the first study on misandry was 13 years after the first study of misogyny. Any proper research on gender hate should measure at least two genders, and should be done using anonymous symmetrical survey data due to institutional bias in reporting male victims.

If you are about to say there is no institutional bias in reporting male victims of hate crimes, you should take another look at these two charts. They show an overwhelming and systematic institutional censorship of misandry in academia. Since governments depend on statistics from academia before creating policy, this then translates to governmental systemic discrimination against male victims.

How could this be? Well in my Gender Economics paper I brought up that there was an academic asymmetry between the number of USA universities with Women’s Studies programs (431) and those with Men’s Studies programs (0). 431 versus 0 is pretty huge, and any time you have a “0”, that means silence: Not represented in society, or public policy. That also means that there may be no objective peer review of what’s coming from the 431 universities, so their output might be ideological, not scientific. I would suggest that the above is smoking shotgun evidence that this is exactly what happened. If so, that could invalidate all of the gender “research” output from 431 universities over 25 years.

To me that’s a big story. How many billions of dollars were spent, just in the USA, to disempower men in society?

So the answer to my question of “How fast is misandry spreading?” Turns out to be “We don’t know”. Because universities didn’t want us to know. Given the incredible power of algorithmic psychometric modelling, which I discussed in the previous paper on What is Threat and How is it Used? , most of this epidemic could have been created in just a year or two. That would be bad news because the R factor could be much higher than what Covid had. If so then this isn’t a misandry epidemic, it would be a misandry pandemic.

What is the Role of Social Media in Spreading Misandry?

This becomes a fairly simple question to answer if you don’t try to answer “why?”. Then it gets very political. So of course I’m going to give it my best shot before this paper concludes.

The major social media platforms all seem to handle misogyny and misandry in a similar way. No they obviously don’t handle misandry and misogyny the same way, but they collude with each other in how they bias their treatment.

Here I did research on TikTok and Instagram Reels since we know those two platforms are designed intentionally to zombify users as explained in my Threat paper. Thus I consider them the highest known-dangerous social media platforms for user manipulation:

• Policy Focus: Both TikTok and Meta (Facebook and Instagram) have specific Community Guidelines and Hateful Conduct policies targeting misogyny. [no mention of misandry, it’s not considered Hateful]

• Scale of Threat: Safety monitors and moderation teams generally evaluate the real-world harm of hate speech. Misogyny is treated as a systemic threat tied to historical violence and marginalization, whereas misandry is frequently viewed as reactive or less structurally threatening. [Those “pink” research studies made gender violence “Historically biased against women” by setting the value for violence against men to zero, even though men are overwhelmingly the victims of violence compared to women.]

• Misogyny Moderation: Policies classify misogyny as a hateful ideology. Content that promotes violence, objectification, or severe prejudice against women is subject to removal, and accounts repeatedly posting this material may face bans or de-monetization.

• Misandry Moderation: Because misandry lacks systemic, historical power structures of oppression in most societies, it is rarely classified as a hate-speech violation in the same capacity. While harassment rules still protect male users from targeted abuse, "venting" or criticizing gender roles is usually evaluated differently by moderation algorithms than hate speech targeting women. [Oppression against men is right there in Figures 1 and 2. It just got erased from “history”. Thus little or no protections for men]

It should be obvious that if there are no rules against a hate speech, and “spicy” content is promoted by the algorithm, misandry is actually getting boosted on social media. Meanwhile, sources of misogyny are getting banned. Content creators then dutifully do what the algorithm wants them to. That means an explosion of misandrous content, and content creators are in direct competition to see who can put the most performative threat into their content.

Who is Most Vulnerable?

I don’t know if a gender difference has been evaluated to the point where we can show causality. What we do know is that women dislike men at almost four times the rate that men dislike women. Any form of speculation will put me into hazardous territory.

What we do know is that TikTok and Instagram Reels were designed to create “zombification” as described in my paper on Threat. Men and women do not consume social media equally. Men consume about 40% less social media content daily compared to women. Women dominate the usage of networks like Pinterest, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. Men tend to favor online discussion forums like Reddit, as well as video game streaming and community platforms (Twitch and Discord).

Thus women are concentrated right in the middle of the zombification killzone.

Racism Crossover

Having grown up in California, politicians often refer to Marijuana as a “gateway drug”. That while it may not be as harmful as other drugs, it “opens the door to harder addictions”. I would suggest that when trying to program someone to hate others, that first demographic hate (like sexism or racism) is the most difficult to convert.

The UK survey found that white women were more likely to be misandrist than racial minorities. Since white people in particular were targetted in the original Cambridge Analytica psychometric modelling attack in 2016 in order to get Brexit passed, this might have created a susceptibility to further programming.

The recent CNN “62 Million” misandry campaign might also hold some clues.

The CNN “62 Million” Performative Threat Campaign Against Men

While CNN sat on this story for a couple weeks, they pushed it to press hard once the UK gender hate study went live. I don’t think this is a coincidence. The data from the UK survey contradicted the ideology behind the CNN story, putting an expiration date on it.

The CNN story was perhaps one of the most promoted stories in internet history, so you likely already heard about it, but I will recap. CNN suggested that 62 million men had been trained in a SA Academy to drug and SA their female partners. That happens to be the same as the number of married men in the USA. The idea that a mainstream news source was claiming that most adult men were secretly SAers generated more threat than any war. Of course CNN wouldn’t lie.

Except that they did. I pointed this out immediately and had people very upset at my poking holes in their threat fantasy. Fortunately for me and my readers, a team of lady journalists did a thorough investigation and saved me at least two weeks of work vetting CNN. You can watch their Debunking CNN’s Viral 62 Million Men Hoax here. I in turn vetted their vetting. A quick summary for those that don’t want to watch it:

• The original story was written by Laila Mickelwait of Exodus Cry.

• CNN carried the story without any apparent vetting or improvement.

• Exodus Cry is a fundamentalist Christian organisation that wants to eliminate pornography and sex work.

• They successfully led a campaign to have Visa and Mastercard demonetise Pxrnhub, and push for age verification.

• Founder Benjamin Nolot is a colorful character. I will let you do your own research.

• Pxrnhub began restricting access instead of forcing users to verify their ID. This caused users to migrate to other platforms, one of the largest being Motherless, which was Exodus Cry’s next target.

• In February of 2026 the site had 62M visitors. It’s content seems essentially identical to the sort of content on Pxrnhub, split into various video categories such as MILF, incest, oral, pretend sleep, etc. They only allow legal consensual video content.

• CNN ran with the 62M number, claimed all that traffic was going to the “pretend sleep” content, left out the pretend/consensual part, and described all visitors as participating in an organised “SA Academy”. The sleep content is relatively unpopular and doesn’t get much traffic. That said, there is nothing illegal about that kink or any of the other kinks hosted by Motherless.

• In other words, the CNN claim was complete bullshit and easily verifiable as such.

As I point out in my Gender Economics paper, sex work has become normalized in our economy, even if still somewhat hidden. As women benefit more than men do economically from SW, attempts to ban SW would arguably harm a lot of women. [Here I’m talking about actual workers, not platform owners] Men who trash talk women who do SW are often labelled as sexist.

My purpose in writing Gender Economics was to objectively address the “wage gap” and other important gender based economic topics and not to promote or neg SW in any way. I do assert that people who do SW often are not aware of the mental health costs involved, and these should be seriously considered.

CNN and TikTok’s Incestuous Relationship

CNN dropped the story but it was TikTok that super boosted related “62 Million” content. As of January 22, 2026, Oracle, led by billionaire Larry Ellison, finalized a deal to purchase a controlling stake in TikTok's U.S. operations. CNN’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, is in the process of being acquired by the newly formed media titan Paramount Skydance. The acquisition is being led by Paramount Skydance, headed by David Ellison (son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison).

I think it is important to note that Larry Ellison is the world’s 5th richest billionaire, just barely behind Jeff Bezos. He has effective control of both CNN and TikTok. Given how amazing the influence combo was here of generating Performative Threat at CNN and then algorithmically boosting it through TikTok, I would expect to see this pattern become commonplace. That content didn’t stay on TikTok, a flood of people carried it to LinkedIn where I was very busy urging people not to spread misinformation and hate speech. That took a physiological toll on me and I had to take a two week break to recover.

Why I Think the CNN Misandry Campaign Backfired

In terms of engagement, the campaign was awe inspiring. People were running around LI looking for men to attack and shame. I’ve never seen anything like it. But the astronomically high misandry rates that the UK survey team found probably went significantly higher due to this one operation. Even men were hating on men. Specific men were not targetted, ALL men were targetted.

To me this is classic Stochastic Threat as I discussed in my Threat paper prior to this one. It is hard to imagine that the scale of this campaign and the fervor it inspired will not further boost already eye popping misandry rates. For all practical purposes, making children still requires men and women to cooperate. A woman that self describes as hating men is unlikely to voluntarily cooperate on this level. Likewise, men who are experiencing such a high threat environment are going to be exceptionally cautious about interactions that might lead to pregnancy.

Since this man hating epidemic seems to be concentrated in white women, as found by the UK gender survey, it seems fair that we can assume that their birth rates could be the lowest of any demographic going forward in the UK, and likely also in the USA. Exodus Cry is a fundamentalist Christian organisation that is pro natal (they encourage child birth), anti abortion, and anti gay. Their pro natalism goals are contradicted by their anti natalism outcomes.

I don’t think they’ve thought this through. They are looking to maximize their numbers but the problem with Stochastic Threat is that once the Genie is out of the bottle, you can’t control it. The results of their campaigns could be a wipeout in white racial reproduction rates. While there doesn’t seem to be any public racism associated with Exodus Cry, the broader religious movement they are in tends to have statistical correlation to groups that are very concerned about “Replacement Theory”. This is the belief that there is some organised movement to reduce white birth rates and boost non white birth rates.

Since non-white women seem to be more resistant to these gendered Stocastic Threat campaigns, we can expect to see an acceleration of racial diversity and “white dilution” in the countries targetted by these campaigns. Being mixed race, I personally think more racial diversity is a good thing. During the 2016 UK Brexit vote, [non-white] immigration was the top political concern:

A Lord Ashcroft poll published shortly after the vote indicated that 80-81% of Leave voters viewed immigration as a "force for ill," compared to only 19-20% of Remain voters.

While immigration can “dilute” the UK white population (83% of residents identify as “white” according to the 2021 census), so can a catastrophic implosion of white birth rates. Misandry rates at current levels among white UK residents will lead to just such an implosion.

My long time readers know I have a bit of a dark sense of humor. I can’t help but think that with how things are going, white racism could be a self-correcting problem that would be solved by maximizing white misandry. While I am not accusing anyone involved in this threat campaign with racism, I’m definitely accusing them of promoting misandry.

I question whether they’ve put much thought into the consequences of their actions. It could take 20 or more years for the 83% white population of the UK to turn white people into a racial minority, but if it’s already such a threat that they fled the EU (which is even whiter than the UK) to slow immigration, this scenario is only going to heighten their perception of “racial threat”.

If these bad actors are so concerned about the “threat of pornography”, I trust they can combat it without spreading misandry. Two wrongs do not make a right. Scientifically, it’s not even clear that pornography is harmful to society. As I explained in Dating Economics, young cis hetero men would like to have partners but they are being priced out of the increasingly transactional market. The UK gender survey confirms this, showing that 80+% of young men want children, and less than 20% of young women want children. The men seem to be remarkably resilient in their positive views of women, despite an increasingly hostile heterosexual environment.

As always, I would like to reaffirm that racism, sexism, bigotry, classism, etc. are normatively immoral and I don’t support any of that. I discuss it because these are problems that threaten our civilized societies. Living in a world without hate may seem like a luxury in modern times, but using hate as entertainment or political manipulation is a luxury that we cannot afford. That “moral debt” is increasing exponentially and we may be at the point now where we can’t even afford the interest payments. Future generations will pay the price for our misdeeds, and that will take the form of Demographic Collapse, which will be a greater threat than climate change and pandemics combined in terms of loss of life.

Sadly, scientists, who we trust to provide us with warnings and solutions against existential threats, are part of the problem here. They need to clean up their act also and act more responsibly.