Instagram Is ‘for Girls’. Why is That an Insult, Mr Musk?

Apparently, your masculinity now depends on which app you open

Choose the wrong icon and you risk expulsion from the boys’ club. Somewhere between uploading a photograph and watching a Reel, a man must apparently surrender his credentials. Elon Musk has offered his verdict: “Instagram is for girls.”

And we are supposed to understand why that is a bad thing

Sign up for Open Magazine’s ad-free experience
Enjoy uninterrupted access to premium content and insights.
Go Ad-Free

Musk reportedly posted the remark in response to Geiger Capital, which announced it had deleted Instagram, describing it as an “inherently female app” with “zero benefit”. Read together, the exchange leaves little mystery about how “female” is being deployed. It supplies the reason for the dismissal

The obvious question deserves to be asked without embarrassment: what, exactly, is wrong with something being for girls?

Open Magazine Latest Edition is Out Now!

The Health and Wellness Issue

25 Sep 2026 – Vol 05 | Issue 39

Musk has a commercial interest here. He owns X; Instagram belongs to Meta, the company led by Mark Zuckerberg, which also owns Facebook. A businessman mocking a competitor is hardly a revelation. The revealing part is the weapon he reaches for

He could argue that his platform offers a better experience. He could discuss what users can do on it, whom they can reach, or why their time would be better spent there. Instead, this particular put-down asks an old prejudice to do the persuasion

If you are a man, the implication runs, you should worry about being associated with the other lot. A curious pitch for technological progress

The boys’ club has a checkout

Advertising has been here before. In Britain in 2002, Nestlé’s Yorkie chocolate bar carried the slogan “It’s not for girls”. A perfectly ordinary consumer choice became a little performance of belonging. Buy the chocolate; join the club

The rivalry makes the parallel particularly apt. Marketing Week’s contemporary account described Nestlé’s positioning against Mars, which was seeking to attract more women. Gender supplied the vocabulary for a contest between competing brands

More than two decades later, the product is a social platform and the provocation comes from its rival’s owner. The underlying invitation is familiar: make a purchase, or a platform choice, that reassures you about the kind of man you are

There are legitimate reasons to design products for particular audiences. People have different needs, and businesses should understand them. The objection begins when a female association becomes evidence of inferiority, or when male customers are encouraged to treat ordinary preferences as threats to their identity

Consider Bic’s “For Her” pens, which attracted ridicule in 2012. Pink and purple stationery became an occasion for women to mock the suggestion that writing required a specially feminised product

That episode exposed the absurdity of attaching gender instructions to everyday objects. Musk’s remark applies the same impulse to an app. Even our phone screens, apparently, require separate entrances

This is also a remarkably patronising way to address men. It assumes their confidence is so fragile that downloading a rival’s product might endanger it. A grown man should be able to enjoy a photograph, follow a chef or watch a dance without requiring clearance from the masculinity department

Zuckerberg complicates the picture

It would be convenient to cast Zuckerberg as the enlightened businessman on the receiving end of an adolescent taunt

His own words make that difficult. On Joe Rogan’s podcast in January 2025, Zuckerberg praised “masculine energy” and argued that a corporate culture more accepting of aggression had positive merits. He also acknowledged the value of different forms of energy. That qualification matters

So does the distinction between the two remarks. Zuckerberg was discussing workplace culture; Musk was disparaging a competing platform. They were making different arguments

Yet Zuckerberg’s formulation raises its own question: why assign a gender to the qualities a business should value?

Ambition, resilience, decisiveness and competitiveness are available to women. Empathy, patience and cooperation are available to men. An organisation needs to judge when those qualities help, when they fail, and how people exercise them. Calling a quality masculine tells us precious little about whether it produces sound decisions

A forceful executive can be wrong. An empathetic colleague can be right. Aggression is no guarantee of competence

The irony is hard to miss. Instagram can be dismissed as female by one technology leader while the man leading its parent company calls for more masculine energy in corporate life. Neither formulation gives us a useful way to assess the product or the workplace

Both make gender do explanatory work it cannot bear

The joke still needs an answer

Of course, the defence is ready: it was a joke. A bit of trolling. Why dignify it with a column?

Because jokes reveal what an audience is expected to take for granted. This one needs “girls” to register as a downgrade. Remove that assumption and the insult loses its engine

A joke can be casual and still deserve scrutiny. Readers are entitled to examine the premise, especially when the speaker has a business interest in the product being mocked

There is no need to claim that Musk devised a calculated campaign to move users from Instagram to X. The exchange does not establish that. Its effect as rhetoric is clear enough: it invites the audience to judge a competitor through a gender hierarchy

Nor should the rebuttal depend on assembling famous male Instagram users or proving that the app has plenty of men

Imagine, for a moment, that every person using it were female. Would that settle anything about its usefulness, creativity or commercial worth? Would the work conducted there become less serious? Would its users’ attention become less worthy of respect?

A defence that says “men use it too” quietly accepts that male participation is the certificate of legitimacy. It leaves the insult’s underlying assumption untouched

A lesson from ‘Like a Girl’

In 2014, Always launched #LikeAGirl, a campaign that challenged the use of girlhood as shorthand for weakness. Its central insight was simple: language can teach girls to think less of themselves, and those associations can be challenged

Always was selling products. Its message belonged to a commercial campaign, with all the scrutiny that entails. Even so, it demonstrated that a business could seek relevance by questioning a familiar prejudice

Musk’s remark reaches for that prejudice again

He is entitled to dislike Instagram. He is entitled to compete fiercely with Meta and mock Zuckerberg’s products. Readers are equally entitled to expect an argument that survives the removal of a schoolyard sneer

If X offers something better, explain it. If Instagram deserves criticism, make the case. “For girls” describes an audience. Mr Musk still owes us the insult

Source: openthemagazine.com