Status of Women Committee on Dec. 8th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I'll make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. You may choose on your devices here in the room the language you want to hear—English, French or the floor, which gives you both. If you wish to speak, raise your hand. Thanks for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 15, 2025, the committee will resume its study of anti-feminist ideology.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I'd like to provide a trigger warning. We'll be discussing experiences related to violence and femicide. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If any participants feel distressed or need help, please advise the clerk. For all witnesses and all members of Parliament, it's important to recognize that these are difficult conversations, so let's try to be compassionate in all our conversations.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses. We have with us today Rachel Gilmore, journalist, Bubble Pop Media; and Vé Mikaelian, mobilization coordinator, Fédération des femmes du Québec.

Welcome. You have five minutes for your statements. To help you out, when you have one minute left, you'll see the yellow card. When you have 30 seconds left, you will see the red card. At the end of your time, I will ever so gently tell you so.

With that, we'll start with Ms. Gilmore for five minutes.

[Rachel Gilmore, Journalist, Bubble Pop Media, As an Individual]

A few months back, I came across a research paper that I found deeply chilling.

The study, by Emelia Sandau and Luc Cousineau, was published in June in the journal Gender and Education. Its title was “'Trying to talk white male teenagers off the alt-right ledge' and other impacts of masculinist influencers on teachers”.

The researchers used data collected from the teachers subreddit community on Reddit.com to dig into how those users described the influences of a resurging misogyny on the jobs of teachers and in classrooms. It turns out that teachers are being bombarded with the rhetoric these kids are learning from the worst men on the Internet.

The researchers found that students are actively parroting male supremacist rhetoric at school, and that is serving to devalue women teachers and make classrooms less safe. They found that it influences gender dynamics in the classroom, to the point that a male faculty member said that the way his female colleagues are treated makes him wonder if they're “teaching in the same school”.

The teachers face degrading, awful comments from the boys in their class. A lot of it is terminology straight from the manosphere space, like boys calling all women and girls “holes” and any boy who is kind to girls a “simp”.

Beyond impacting the gender dynamics in their classrooms, the teachers also raised genuine safety concerns that arose because of the stuff these kids were consuming online. Here's what one teacher had to say about a student who had been influenced by manosphere influencer Andrew Tate: “I had a student write a paper in graphic detail about how sexual assault victims 'deserved' it and 'all women were asking for it' and a lot of other extremely alarming sentiments. The paper topic was nowhere close to anything like this, but he wrote it anyway.”

The research went on to highlight different approaches the teachers had discussed for addressing this phenomenon, but it was clear that overall there was no consensus on what works. Beyond that, some administrators told teachers who approached them with these concerns that “boys will be boys”.

Despite everything I just described, the reason I wanted to share this study and these anecdotes is that it gave me a very chilling overarching realization, which is that these testimonies from teachers are akin to standing on a beach and seeing the water suddenly receding very quickly and very significantly. When that happens, it's an early warning sign of a tsunami. That's how I felt about that study, because these boys are young right now and they're saying and doing these things in classrooms, but they're going to grow up and they're going to bring these ideologies into the broader world.

That's why I am so glad you're studying the issue of anti-feminist ideology. Thanks to a confluence of factors, including the advent of social media, incompetent moderation from tech giants and manosphere influencers' creation of soft entry points for a more radical ideology, academics I've spoken to have said that anti-feminist ideology is experiencing a resurgence. Unfortunately, it is nothing new.

While experts like Luc Cousineau and Emelia Sandau would be better placed to speak to the literature and studies on these topics, I can attest to some of the real-life experiences of encountering this ideology. As someone who exists prominently online as an outspoken woman, I often intersect with these virulently anti-feminist spaces and ideologies. That means, unfortunately, that I have had first-hand interactions with the vicious misogyny these ideologies make manifest.

Often the white nationalists I cover, who spew racist and transphobic vitriol, don't have the kindest words for women either. As a female journalist who exposes them, I've therefore found myself on the receiving end of that hate. Harassers have engaged in softer tactics, like mocking my voice and turns of phrases to dismiss my work. They swarm whenever I receive career opportunities, spreading often unspecific and gendered attacks against my character, hoping to intimidate those who would think to offer me such opportunities in the future. At times, such as with respect to a CTV fact-checking job, it works. In fact, after my last committee appearance, the manner in which I spoke was mocked by several of these same voices as evidence that I was unqualified for the honour of testifying before Parliament.

If you're uncomfortable hearing some of these stories, like the time a man photoshopped semen on my face and circulated it around the Internet, you can only imagine how uncomfortable it is to live this, so I am very glad that once again you guys are studying this. I can only hope that I will be of some service today in helping to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you so much.

Now we'll turn to Ms. Mikaelian for five minutes, please.

[Vé Mikaelian, Mobilization Coordinator, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Thank you for having me here today.

Let me get directly to the point. As you know, antifeminism is not an opinion. It is not a cultural quirk in response to progress made by women. Today, it's one of the fastest-growing extremist ideologies in the west. It poses a real threat to public safety, social cohesion and our democratic institutions.

Recent research is unequivocal. A study analyzing 28.8 million messages posted on the manosphere shows accelerating radicalization. In 10 years, the number of messages posted within these communities has more than doubled. Researchers are observing a marked increase in violent rhetoric and attacks against women. In certain “incel” communities, the percentage of messages that are openly hostile toward women has risen by more than 60% since 2016.

We also observe that the most violent communities are the ones growing the fastest. Users are leaving moderate spaces and joining the most extreme groups.

Radicalization is therefore no accident—it's the dominant trend in the manosphere. And these ideologies, you know, don't remain online. Since 2014, attacks carried out in the name of “incel” ideology have caused at least 89 deaths, including 15 in Canada. This puts our country in second place among locations in the world most affected by ideologically motivated misogynist violence.

In Canada, one of the most striking concerns Alek Minassian, who carried out the 2018 Toronto attack after declaring that he had acted on “incel” ideology. His actions were not isolated but representative of a broader movement in which hatred of women becomes a direct driver of violence.

These figures must be taken seriously. We're not speaking of isolated individuals. We're speaking of attackers who explicitly claim allegiance to a structured ideology, fuelled by online spaces where violence against women is framed as a political act.

Research also shows that each time users participate in the manosphere, they become more aggressive, more hostile toward women, and more receptive to all types of extremist discourse. Hatred toward women is not an incidental symptom. For many, it is the starting point of their radicalization.

Alongside this explicit radicalization, there is another phenomenon that is just as alarming. It's the fact that antifeminism is becoming normalized and is now expressed without inhibition. Research shows that it's causing the circulation of more and more discourses presented as reasonable, moderate, or even humorous. We hear of a crisis of masculinity, we portray equality as extreme, feminist gains are challenged in the name of freedom or tradition. In the context of widespread social unease, economic crises and uncertainty, these narratives find fertile ground to spread. These discourses may not directly advocate violence, but they create an environment where extreme ideas become thinkable and acceptable.

Finally, it is essential to recognize the existence of structural antifeminism. Some public policies, even without claiming to be antifeminist, produce effects that disproportionately harm women—particularly racialized, Muslim, migrant, or vulnerable women. Consider, for example, laws adopted in the name of a so‑called secularism that instrumentalizes gender equality. They limit access to employment for women who wear religious symbols, reducing their professional and social mobility. Consider also security or border-control policies, such as Bill C‑12, which have direct consequences on the safety and protection of migrant or asylum-seeking women.

When the state weakens the ability of certain women to participate fully in society, it contributes to institutional antifeminism. This institutional antifeminism in turn feeds violent ideologies. Discriminatory policies validate misogynistic narratives, and those narratives then justify the policies. It's a kind of vicious circle.

The warning signs are neither weak nor ambiguous; they are massive, documented and convergent. They point to a dangerous outcome unless we act now. Antifeminism is an extremist ideology based on gender. It weakens democracy because it calls into question the equality of citizens, reduces women’s participation in public life and now serves as a point of entry to forms of extremism that directly threaten national security. It fuels other forms of hatred. It spreads among young people more rapidly than our current prevention mechanisms can keep up with.

We can no longer look away.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

We will start with Mrs. Vien for six minutes.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Ladies, thank you for taking the time to be with us this afternoon. We are pleased you are here.

This is a topic that’s very important to us. Frankly, we are all shocked by what we've been hearing and seeing in recent years with respect to antifeminism. Just last year, 240 women were murdered in Canada; that's one woman every two days, every 48 hours. It’s extremely concerning.

Ms. Mikaelian, you seem quite pessimistic. You paint a very bleak picture for us, and I can sense that you are very concerned about all of this. Organization is probably responsible for ringing the alarm.

You refer to a political act. What specifically do you mean? You said, unless I misunderstood, that antifeminism was a political act.

[Vé Mikaelian]

Yes, for men in the manosphere, it becomes political. For them, expressing and asserting themselves in society as antifeminists is like exercising their democratic rights. It’s a political identity that these boys and men adopt to defend their right to participate in this society.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

The committee has talked a lot about education in our other studies. We’re a bit hyperactive here, considering that we’ve conducted nine studies in the past four years, and education always comes up. I remember one study, among others, that said young boys really need to be targeted as well. What should be done? What would you recommend be promoted to help these young boys follow a much different path?

[Vé Mikaelian]

Clearly, more prevention is needed. People on the ground need to be equipped to engage in these discussions with our boys.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

What do you mean by prevention?

[Vé Mikaelian]

As prevention, I mean there needs to be public education. It’s essential that the people on the ground, teachers, be equipped to do that.

Parents also need tools since they have a responsibility in this matter. They need to be asked to take an interest in what their boys are doing, not just confront them, but also to be interested in the world they’re immersed in. You know, in the manosphere, it’s two clicks of an algorithm and then all control is lost: boys start looking at something about bodybuilding on their cellphone and it leads to antifeminist content.

Parents and significant adults really need to take a genuine interest in what their boys are doing and what they’re watching.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Yes. As for technology, it is what it is. I am overwhelmed by technology myself, as I am not of an age where I’m very comfortable with it. Parents may also have difficulty keeping up. We heard that teachers—I think it was 60%—were completely overwhelmed by events in the classrooms.

[Vé Mikaelian]

Yes. A study was conducted recently, and what I'm about to say is blunt. In that research conducted by GRIS, an organization advocating for sexual diversity, boys were asked how they would feel if they learned that their sister was a lesbian. Many boys added a box to say that they would kill their sister if she announced that she was a lesbian. That’s what research has shown. This is a study that has just been conducted. There’s an increase in this kind of narrative. That’s what my colleague was saying as well in her remarks.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Ms. Gilmore, let’s talk about Andrew Tate, though I'm loath to speak his name to avoid giving him too much publicity. A witness came here last week—unfortunately I don't remember her name—and said that every time this person is on the air or gets publicity, the number of clicks or the number of people following him skyrockets. He made a guest appearance on the public show Tout le monde en parle. I don’t know if you're familiar with the show, one among other public affairs programs, on Sunday evenings. Should we give these people an open forum, a voice? He had a great space for communicating that evening.

[Rachel Gilmore]

I think if we want to talk to these people, we need to do it in a responsible way. We need to ask them tough questions about their ideas. I wasn’t in the room when they decided to invite him. If I had been a host of that show, I might not have invited that kind of person. When these men are given a platform, we need to ask them tough questions about the concepts they promote.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Ms. Mikaelian, we’re looking for solutions and recommendations here. You talked to us about prevention. Do you have any other recommendations for the government?

[Vé Mikaelian]

Of course.

Feminist groups that conduct research must be funded because much more data is needed to be able to legitimize the actions being attempted on the ground. It’s a measure that the government could take that would help us in our fight tremendously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excellent. Now we're going to Ms. Khalid for six minutes.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. All of your work in this space is much appreciated. I'll start with Ms. Gilmore.

We talk about anti-feminist ideology and indoctrination by an organization or organized in a certain way. Who are the “they”? Who is organizing all of this?

[Rachel Gilmore]

There's a lot of money in it. It's not necessarily organized always in the sense that there's a traditional structure to it, but you could argue that the profit model and incentive structure that is created through social media and through the ways in which these figures can take advantage of creative ways of achieving virality is the institutional structure that creates an atmosphere where these people can thrive. Andrew Tate is a great example. He was actually deplatformed initially, but he has been able to thrive despite that because he told his followers, when I'm deplatformed, take my clips and post them everywhere. He gave his followers permission to do that and he encouraged them to do that, so that there was this sort of perverse reaction that ended up happening where he exploded even more in popularity when he was deplatformed.

The “they” are these tech platforms, the alt media. There are all kinds of alternative platforms that, when an individual is deplatformed from a more mainstream one, still allow them to reach an audience. I wouldn't say it's organized in a traditional sense, but there are absolutely a lot of different hands in the pot here.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You spoke about Andrew Tate. There are many others who are like him. What makes young people so vulnerable to being susceptible to that message?

[Rachel Gilmore]

I asked an academic who studies these issues that exact question about Andrew Tate on my podcast not long ago, and what he told me was that a lot of these young men want someone to tell them how to be a man in this society. Guys like Andrew Tate claim to have an answer to that. They also package their content in such a way that it's very difficult to navigate some of the moderation, because when he's just doing his fighter bodybuilding stuff, that isn't the kind of thing that you can take down. It's a soft entry point that eventually leads these people who are consuming fitness content, as you mentioned earlier, to this pipeline towards this deeper radicalization.

It's difficult because the fact that these guys exist and present themselves as role models for those young men on how to be men is something that we really need to have a counterbalance to. Frankly, I think we need to disrupt the notion that this is in any way what manhood is.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Are you implying that these influencers or “role models” take the vulnerability of young men to make money for themselves?

[Rachel Gilmore]

Definitely—yes, absolutely. All of this is a grift. Some of them are ideologues, sure, but there are a lot of people who have figured out that there is a ton of money in exploiting people's fear, their insecurity. It's a scary world. It's overwhelming. There is a lot of money you can make in telling people that you have all the answers on how they should live and can help them to get the girls, the money and the fast cars. It's disgusting to me because there are real problems in this world that need to be addressed, but nothing that Andrew Tate offers will provide that redress.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Mikaelian, do you want to comment on that?