Lionel Delgado: "More and more women say: I wish I were lesbian"

Masclosfera and heteropessimism. Gimbro and girlboss. They are concepts linked to gender that in some way indicate the cultural acceleration experienced in this area. He analyzes it in Sad and wild the philosopher and sociologist Lionel Delgado, who has a digital platform –Broders– for young people to express their emotions and concerns.

Men are the tip of the spear of the conservative drift. Why?

— The only constant in the world regarding the vote for the far-right is that more men vote for it. There is an emotional issue within masculinity that connects very well with neoliberal values: individualism, competition, becoming the best versions of ourselves, being strong…

You say that normative masculinity is stronger where there are more economic difficulties.

— We understand that intersectionality is very important in debates, but then we analyze the male experience in a simple way. Think of a climbing wall: if you are in a great hurry to grab on, life is simpler, but sometimes you are left with so few things that the definition of yourself depends on very few concepts. And if you have trouble defining yourself, gender can become a very important issue.

What is masculinity?

— There is a very famous author who said that masculinity was defined by a triple negation: not being a child, not being a woman, not being a homosexual. I try to put on the table that with the hybridization between gender and neoliberalism there is another important negation: not being a loser. 

What do they do to not feel ripped off?

— Hypermasculinity at a visual level, violence as a tool for expression and relationship, investing time to get out of precariousness. Amadeo Llados' courses and the armies of neoliberal mentors work, and this doesn't happen by chance.

Llados says you have to do burpees to be strong.

— And you pay him for a private course that will get you out of poverty. It is no coincidence that behind this culture there are precarious young people with problems to support themselves in a very complex, very fast, and very precarious world.

Why are they attracted to violence?

— Violence is not just a tool of power, it is also an expression. Obviously, violence exists in all classes, but today the upper classes are associated with stoicism. The rich person is a calm individual who does not let themselves be subdued by emotions. On the other hand, in certain social contexts, violence manifested in a traditional way, linked to the strong and powerful man, continues to be a tool of interaction. 

But you say that an important thing about violence is that it produces emotion.

— Young people are not into this saying: I am a soldier of the patriarchy and I want to maintain structural inequality. There is a matter of desire. Anti-feminist cultures are linked to neoliberal success and are managing to awaken a desire for power, status, and fun. There is an idea of rebellion that works from the promise that you will gain status by putting yourself in these cultures.

You run workshops behind closed doors. What do you see behind the facade?

— Fatigue, distancing and distrust. They are very tired.

Tired of what?

— Let them be told how they should change and that afterwards the world does not change either. In fact, normativity, the status of the traditional capitalist man, is being revalued.

And what do they want? The house, the car, the stable job?

— We are in a world where they feel they have no control over anything: not their work path, not finding a partner, not starting families... and there are companies monetizing discomfort. I am from the generation of 15M who knows that the social contract has been broken: if you work hard, you will have a job and be able to afford a house. Today we know that this is a lie. And when there is a lack of control over all of this, culture is your body and the way you express yourself is the image you project outwards.

So the gym bros and gym culture is related to this.

— And the neurosis for fitness and good food. This culture of returning to traditional values has an intention of regaining a moment of control: I want normativity because non-normativity has also not allowed us to escape discomfort. 

We talk about bonds. You say that in the gender debate, affections must be discussed. 

— What we find at Broders – the digital platform designed so they can express concerns – is that boys want to hook up. 

The problem of dating is how to do it from a position of equality?

— They are told they should relate differently, work on privilege, complicit silence, but how is this done? How do you connect without being a bore? How do you manage jealousy and insecurity? There are many pedagogical guides designed for girls, advice on identifying a violent boy, but there are no guides on how not to become a violent boy.

Do stringers also have to do with affections?

— If we analyze the manosphere, we can find that many of the discourses are related to bonds and relationships. Incels are angry because they don't fuck. Pick-up artists give advice on how to hook up more. MGTOWs are men who are angry because women only want them for their money and propose rejecting women and focusing on their personal projects.

In all that you cite, there is no one willing to love.

— Bonds are complex, not just in terms of partnership. And we are in a moment of significant discomfort with bonds. More isolated and more alone. 

But women don't become incels…

— No, but heteropessimism is also a reflection of the crisis of bonds. It is this culture of frustration and tiredness with men if you are hetero. More and more women are saying: I wish I were a lesbian. 

Are the manosphere and heteropessimism two sides of the same coin?

— It is not comparable because in one case violence and hatred are defended, and in the other what exists is tiredness. But they do reflect something similar, which is relational fatigue, the problem of loneliness, and that bonds are in crisis. 

How do we solve it? 

— It is increasingly difficult to meet with others who think completely differently from us.

And it's also understood... because on a Saturday night I want to have dinner with someone I like, not with Amadeo Llados.

— Yes, but this culture has been installed: I don't want to explain anything to you, you should already be able to see it yourself. But since when has a political movement not gone out to try to convince the other?

How is this done?

— It is not just a matter of rational arguments. With the hangover from covid, we said: data kills narrative. But I say in the book that data does not kill desire. And it is important because often the relationship we have with arguments, with political imaginaries, is not about figures or statistics. It is an emotional relationship. And this approach must also be worked on. 

Maybe this sounds naive,but in the end, what these young people want is a good life, right? 

— The concept of the good life is very important, because it has been stolen from us by a very neoliberal imaginary. Success is having money, sexual capital, power, and status… and I think it is important to be able to recover the concept of success to frame it in terms of being a good friend, a good partner, a good person. Now there is a very individualistic imaginary, young people think about building a successful "self", not about bonds. They believe that bonds will come when they earn money, when they are strong, when they are the best version of themselves.