A new minister in Victoria will tackle the manosphere. Here’s what they should do
- Written by The Conversation
Victoria has its first minister for men and boys. Part of a cabinet reshuffle, the role was given to Frankston MP Paul Edbrooke.
It comes with an explicit dual focus: on one hand, boys’ and men’s own wellbeing, and on the other, the harms boys and men perpetrate.
The role has also been signalled as being a response to the influence of online misogynistic cultures, including the manosphere.
The establishment of this cabinet position is politically significant and offers both substantial opportunities and potential risks. The key will be following the evidence, however uncomfortable.
A national first
Edbrooke’s new role represents the only formal cabinet-level “minister for men and boys” in Australia.
There have been calls from some men’s health advocates for such a role to be established federally. For example, Dan Repacholi was appointed by the federal government to be Australia’s first Special Envoy for Men’s Health in 2025.
Victoria has previously included a Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behaviour Change. The Coalition in New South Wales also announced earlier this year the establishment of a new portfolio dedicated to men’s health ahead of the 2027 state election.
But Victoria is the first government to identify “men and boys” as a distinct policy category, signalling that the influences shaping misogynist attitudes requires focused attention.
Why now?
The timing of this new portfolio is not accidental. It reflects a growing recognition that something has shifted in how misogyny is circulating, particularly among Australian men and boys.
In recent years, research has documented the rapid uptake of manosphere content in Australian schools. Teachers are reporting a marked increase in misogynistic language, resistance to women’s authority, and the normalisation of sexist and violent attitudes among some boys.
Crucially, Edbrooke acknowledged that responding to the manosphere will be a key focus of his portfolio.
Public concern about men’s violence against women has also intensified, alongside renewed attention to the drivers that underpin it. The connection between misogyny and violent political extremism now better understood, reinforcing the need for a strong prevention response.
Taken together, these help to explain why the need for a portfolio focused on men and boys has emerged at this time. The question is whether this opportunity will be used to create meaningful change where it is needed.
Proceeding with care
There is a risk this new ministerial role could deepen existing tensions if it is not carefully designed.
For instance, there are calls to do more to address men’s mental health. This is important work and should be done.
But improving boys’ mental health should not be overstated as the solution to gendered violence.
Responses that treat boys’ and men’s mental health as the key factor in violence against women ignore the complexity of the evidence. Abuse of women and girls is present across all socioeconomic demographics and among those with or without mental ill-health.
To make real progress, responses must be grounded in evidence and firmly focused on achieving the principles of gender justice.
The policies to prioritise
So to make a meaningful difference, what should the minister do? Schools would be a great place to start.
Australian evidence is clear that schools are a key site for preventing gender-based violence. This work is most effective when it is whole-school, properly supported and built into systems and curricula.
This means proper funding and meaningful support for Respectful Relationships Education, stronger teacher training in violence prevention, and a curriculum that helps young people think critically about gender, power and online influence.
It’s also essential that beliefs in boys and men “falling behind” or being victims of feminism and gender equality are strongly refuted. These beliefs are promoted by manosphere myths that cause significant harm.
The new minister’s policy response must also explicitly name misogyny as an increasingly mainstreamed ideology. This means recognising that it’s a predictor of all forms of violence.
United Nations bodies have recently warned about the risks of rising misogyny and all forms of violence. These risks are very real in Victoria and across the country.
Now is the time for misogyny to be named plainly and clearly, and for us to emphasise that misogyny appeals to boys and men because of the power it offers them, not because it provides a solution to their suffering.
Overall, the creation of a minister for men and boys signals the Victorian government is willing to engage with complex and sensitive questions about gender, men’s violence and misogyny.
Now the challenge is for policymakers and the minister to engage meaningfully with the evidence and be courageous enough to highlight the dangers of rising misogyny.
