A pattern is emerging that defence and foreign policy practitioners can no longer afford to ignore: the geopolitics of gender backlash. What might be called the new manospheres of influence—digitally enabled, algorithmically amplified networks of misogynistic mobilisation—are increasingly intersecting with security discourse, election integrity debates, and geopolitical competition.
This is a structural shift in how power is contested, legitimacy is framed, and foreign influence is exercised. For women leaders in defence, security, and international affairs, understanding these dynamics is essential for strategic resilience.
From Culture Wars to Security Sectors
The backlash against women’s rights is not anecdotal. UN Women reported that one in four countries experienced measurable setbacks in women’s rights in 2024. Critically, this rollback increasingly intersects with the securitisation of key domains, including critical minerals, digital governance, election integrity, climate, and the energy transition.
The Reykjavík Index for Leadership has tracked a worrying generational shift: in several G7 countries, younger respondents are less open to women’s leadership than older cohorts. The most significant perception gaps appear in sectors related to security and defence. The geopolitical environment is increasingly marked by a declining rules-based order accelerated by recent shifts in U.S. foreign policy; large-scale armed conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan; and the global realignment into rival blocs of power. As public opinion absorbs a logic of confrontation, hierarchy, and power projection, the space for inclusive leadership narrows. Security discourse hardens. Masculinised narratives of strength re-emerge as politically profitable.
Conservative political forces are consolidating power in the United States and elsewhere, and their cultural views are increasingly shaping defence and foreign policy discourse. Meanwhile, conservative religious networks and state actors—including the Russian Federation—have funded cross-border campaigns targeting gender equality frameworks in Europe and beyond. This suggests that foreign influence is no longer shaped exclusively by traditional national interests. We are entering an era where culture wars themselves become geopolitical instruments.
The Algorithmic Manosphere
Toxic masculinity has long been ingrained in international affairs—the Epstein scandal’s global ripple effects demonstrated how elite networks are structured by power, gender, and impunity. But while attention lingers on those aftershocks, a parallel dynamic is unfolding: online misogynist influencers are coaching young conservative elites while amplifying destabilising political narratives with geopolitical consequences.
Influencer Andrew Tate—currently facing human trafficking prosecution in Romania—illustrates how these new manospheres operate. With reported connections to the Trump family and a massive social media reach, his trajectory shows how digital masculinity, grievance politics, and international influence converge. A recent report by Republican staff of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary characterised the annulment of Romania’s 2024 presidential election as an example of aggressive European Union censorship. The report, echoing narratives previously circulated by Russian state media, was amplified by Elon Musk on X. In a comment on Musk’s post, Tate welcomed the development, noting that the prosecutor involved in the annulment decision had previously pursued charges against him and his brother.
These new networks function differently: influencers relocate to jurisdictions with weaker governance and operate beyond geographical constraints. Social media platforms algorithmically reward outrage, dominance, and humiliation—precisely the tools of misogynistic mobilisation. Dense political connections link influencers to politicians, donors, platform owners, and media personalities, creating informal protection networks capable of intimidation and retaliation.
The Tate case demonstrates how the fusion of masculinity performance and political leverage works, mixing lifestyle branding, online misogyny, criminal activity, and geopolitical signalling overlap.
More subtly, the rhetoric emerging in elite security forums also signals shifts. When high-level speeches at gatherings such as the 2026 Munich Security Conference evoke imperial grandeur and civilisational conquest without acknowledging the historical suffering of colonised populations, they normalise a worldview grounded in dominance rather than responsibility. Security crises privilege hyper-masculine archetypes of leadership, and topics like energy and climate transitions are cast as emasculating policy shifts. The return of a ruthless, macho vocabulary to strategic discourse is not accidental.
Why This Matters for Women in Defence and International Affairs
Not every conservative critique is foreign interference, nor is every debate about standards inherently misogynistic, but dismissing the structural dimension of gender backlash as merely cultural would be strategically shortsighted. Women are operating within a geopolitical arena where gender itself becomes a strategic variable.
Defence, security, and diplomacy are hierarchical sectors structured around the operation of force and strategic competition. When political systems tilt toward conservative machismo, organisational culture shifts, too; institutional pressure intensifies, and subtler suppression techniques proliferate. Norwegian scholar Berit Ås identified five ‘master suppression techniques’ that systematically marginalise women in public life: making them invisible, ridiculing, withholding information, creating impossible double binds, and heaping blame and shame.
These risks may manifest in the evolving environment as: womens’ voices potentially deprioritised through algorithmic systems; gender advisor roles sidelined or eliminated; female leaders and analysts dismissed as ’emotional’ during crises; information withheld from women or mixed-gender teams; women leaders facing contradictory criticism for being either too soft or too aggressive; and disinformation or shaming campaigns amplified through social media.
Building Strategic Resilience
Defence and international affairs are precisely where inclusive leadership matters most. As the global order fragments, public opinion may gravitate toward muscular postures shaped by the manosphere. Therefore, resilience is about structural positioning, not simply emotional endurance. Women leaders must master narrative strategy—pre-empting suppression narratives by connecting gender inclusion to operational effectiveness and strategic credibility.
Building cross-gender alliances is essential to drive institutional change. Digital literacy matters: understanding how algorithms amplify outrage enables women to shape communication accordingly. Anchoring legitimacy in performance—delivering results in crisis management, negotiation, and policy execution—builds credibility. Finally, deliberate mentorship of the younger generation of professionals is critical.
The geopolitics of gender backlash is here. For women in defence, security, and diplomacy, the stakes extend beyond career survival. They encompass the professional norms, institutional integrity, and democratic resilience that future crises will demand. The response must be equally steady and strategic.
Ancuța (Anna) Hansen is the director of Perseveras Consulting, based in Australia, and an international expert in democracy, foreign affairs, and international development. For over two decades, she has led programs that strengthen political and electoral processes, peacebuilding, and civic engagement in Africa, Central America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific, and has authored and edited numerous articles and research reports.
This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.
