It is widely believed that boys and young men are absorbing sexist attitudes online, from influencers in the manosphere

Why is this issue important?
For years there has been concern about the spread of misogynistic and other toxic beliefs online. The subject has been put into the spotlight in Britain by the success of the Netflix drama "Adolescence", about a 13-year-old boy who kills a girl; but the issue is constantly in the news. This week, a survey by the NASUWT teaching union found that almost three in five British teachers said they believe social media use has had a negative effect on pupil behaviour, with female staff bearing the brunt. One teacher reported boys "barking at female staff and blocking doorways… as a direct result" of watching videos by the influencer Andrew Tate (pictured above).

What exactly is the manosphere?
It's a term coined in 2009, which refers to a network of blogs, online forums, podcasts and social media channels promoting traditional masculinity and anti-feminist beliefs. The manosphere's roots are usually traced to the 1970s men's rights movement, and the "pickup artist" scene of the early 2000s, devoted to the seduction of women; but it has grown on the internet into a variety of subcultures. At the mainstream end are "brocasters" such as Joe Rogan, America and the UK's most popular podcaster, who caters to primarily male listeners, discussing subjects from martial arts and drugs to news and conspiracy theories; at a more intellectual frequency, there's the conservative psychologist and guru Jordan Peterson. Influencers such as Tate, Adin Ross and Myron Gaines mix up self-help, fitness and business advice with dating strategies. At the extremes are groups such as Men Going Their Own Way, whose users espouse male separation from the rest of society, and the "incels" – involuntarily celibate men who, says one critic, have constructed a "violent political ideology" around the refusal of "young, beautiful women to have sex with them". All, though, are to some extent connected by the same underpinning ideology.

What kind of ideology is that?
Broadly, they share a sense that Western society is overly feminised, that men and boys are prevented from living out their authentic lives, and that they are often discriminated against. "Not all branches of the manosphere are overtly appalling," noted The Washington Post a decade ago. "Not all of them are even run by men. That said, their core philosophy basically boils down to this: (1) feminism has overrun/corrupted modern culture, in violation of nature/biology/inherent gender differences, and (2) men can best seduce women (slash, save society in general) by embracing a super-dominant, uber-masculine gender role." In the manosphere, there are recurring themes and beliefs, often articulated in distinctive jargon.

What sort of jargon?
As in far-right subcultures, people often say they have been "red-pilled", a reference to the sci-fi film "The Matrix", in which the protagonist swallows a red pill in order to see the disturbing truth: that the human race is kept in a simulation created by machines. The reality thus revealed is that of the "sexual marketplace": the hierarchies and injustices caused by giving women freedom of choice. Men are divided up into alpha males, average betas and, at the bottom of the heap, no-hoper omegas (though bucking this trend are the sigmas, admired lone wolves who exist outside the popularity jungle). The "80:20" theory, popular among incels, posits that 80% of women (known, if attractive, as Stacys) are only attracted to alphas (or Chads), who make up 20% of men. The remaining 80% of men, the argument goes, will find it very difficult to find mates, unless they go on to become well-off, when women discarded by alphas will marry them to leech off their wealth. This dynamic is popularly referred to with the phrase: "alpha f***s, beta bucks".

What other phrases do they use?
There's a great deal of dehumanising slang. Women are often described as "femoids" or "foids" (female humanoids). "Roasties" are women whom incels deem to have had too much sex. The acronym "Awalt" – all women are like that – posits that women are vapid, promiscuous gold-diggers. "Cucks" (cuckolds) are betas who have been deceived by them. When attempting to seduce women, pick-up artists discuss "cavemanning": using violence to overcome LMR (last minute resistance) from women to force them into sex. One pick-up artist boasted on a popular forum: "many times I have just thrown the girls over my shoulder".

Do we have to take this seriously?
To some extent, these are just new variants of age-old sexism, but they come in a persuasive and ubiquitous format. Research by the charity Hope Not Hate in 2023 found that 79% of boys aged 16 to 17 in the UK had consumed content by Tate; only 58% had heard of the then prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Like populist political leaders – Donald Trump is popular in the manosphere – figures such as Tate and Peterson appeal to men and boys who feel ignored and emasculated by post-industrial society. Tate offers harsh truths – "nobody cares how you feel" – and claims to tell his followers how to avoid being a "wage-slave brokie" in a dead-end job: how to "escape the matrix". And in its most drastic forms, the manosphere can be very dangerous.

What dangers does it pose?
In May 2014, Elliot Rodger, a self-proclaimed "incel", shot or stabbed six people to death, and injured 14 more, in Santa Barbara, California. He targeted the Alpha Phi sorority house, where he deemed the "hottest" female students at his college resided. In a manifesto, Rodger boasted he was "punishing women and all of humanity for their depravity". Incels hail him as a "saint". In April 2018 in Toronto, Alek Minassian killed 11 people and injured a further 15. Before the attack, he posted on social media: "All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!"

"It is a testament to the insanity of the modern age," said the Daily Mail, that Britain has spent years "debating the answer to an absurdly simple question: what is a woman?" It may seem odd that the highest court in the land was required to settle this, but that is what happened, and last Wednesday the Supreme Court duly passed its judgment. The point at issue was whether transgender women with a gender recognition certificate – biological men who live as women, and have gone though an official process acknowledging this – can share the legal protections given to women under Britain's equality laws (specifically, in this case, whether they could take up positions on boards in Scotland reserved for women). The judges' unanimous answer was that, no, the terms "woman" and "man" in the Equality Act 2010 refer only to a "biological woman" and a "biological man".

"Women should never have had to fight this battle in defence of scientific truth," said The Times. But at least it's now settled, and the judgment confers clear legal protection on single-sex services and female-only spaces. "Redress and an end to the fear of persecution is finally coming" for women who have fought for their right to play sports against one another without having to compete with biological males; or to support victims of male violence in women-only refuges. The ruling is not a defeat for trans people, who, as the judges were at pains to point out, are protected from discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act. It simply confirmed "that women's rights are sacrosanct also", and that trans activists were wrong to erode those rights by "equating gender expression with the immutable facts of nature".

Sadly, said Kate Osborne on Labour List, this judgment is actually far from simple. It clarifies that trans women can now lawfully be excluded from single-sex spaces for women. But "it raises more questions than it answers". If they can't use women's toilets or hospital wards, where should they go? What's the point of having a gender recognition certificate if it doesn't make you a woman legally? If organisations are legally bound to apply rules based on biological sex, how do they do that? Do they challenge people based on whether they look like a woman? Do they ask to see their "bits"? For most people, "sex and gender align". For some, they don't; and the law has to resolve this. But this ruling doesn't do that. It just swings the pendulum back "the other way".

It's a "confusing" situation, said Robin Moira White in The Guardian. If the ruling really does lead to a policy of trans women being forced to use the men's loos and trans men the ladies', then most people will regard it as "unacceptable". And it would probably be discriminatory to trans people under European human rights law. For those affected, this is a "frightening" moment, said Gaby Hinsliff, also in The Guardian. What happens to trans women who are already on female wards? Will gyms that have previously been welcoming "turn hostile"? It's very hard to say, said Natasha Radmehr in The Times. "I have seen so many conflicting interpretations floating around that it is difficult to know how all of this will be executed and policed in reality." What's certain is that the judgment will be exploited by anti-trans bigots, and by others who want to "stoke" the fierce culture war. J.K. Rowling, for instance, responded by posting a picture of herself with a cocktail, puffing on a celebratory cigar.

I'm amazed by the fury and dismay that has arisen in response to the Supreme Court judgment, said Sonia Sodha in The Observer. It simply clarifies a point that has long been disputed. For 10 years, lobby groups such as Stonewall have insisted that "trans women are women", and have misrepresented the law to tell public-sector organisations and employers that they must treat them as such. Now, the judges have confirmed that this is wrong. It's not lawful to expect a female nurse to share changing facilities with a biologically male colleague. It's not lawful to insist that trans women should be allowed on female wards, as many NHS trusts have done (and to regard it as transphobic to question this). Trans activists should stop trying to dismantle women's legal protections. Instead, they should advocate for "gender-neutral" spaces, and other specialist services for trans people.

Women who fought for this for years have been told not to be triumphalist, said Janice Turner in The Times. And of course we'll "move on". But let's not forget that it took a decade to get this settled. Let's not forget "a time of collective madness, when lesbians had penises, rapists were banged up in women's jails, disabled women were bigots for wanting same-sex intimate care, when we were told to welcome men who stole our sports" – and when women lost their jobs for taking a stand on this issue. It has been a "painful struggle". And the victory is long overdue.

When Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates announced the break-up of their 27-year marriage four years ago, it was reported as a "shock divorce" – in part because their work co-running the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation had earned them a reputation as the "power couple of global philanthropy".

In reality, though, theirs was never an easy relationship, says Decca Aitkenhead in The Sunday Times. They'd first met in 1987 when Melinda, a recent graduate, joined Microsoft as a marketing manager. Already a billionaire, Bill asked her out in the company car park; they started dating, but Bill was unduly fond of partying and strip clubs; and Melinda once found him writing a list of the pros and cons of marriage on a whiteboard. By the early 1990s, it was either marry or split up. They married, but things didn't get much easier: she felt alone after the birth of their first daughter, Jennifer; they lived in a huge 66,000-square-foot house, which she hated; and Bill turned out to be a notorious womaniser.

The process of divorcing was hard: Melinda recalls that her husband was such a tough opponent during negotiations that she suffered panic attacks. She seems perplexed by Bill's recent description of their break-up as the greatest failure of his life; it was, she says, "something that was necessary". "He's got his own life," she observes simply. "I have my life now. I am very happy."