Chuck Palahniuk’s “Fight Club” classic encapsulates and satirizes not only the rash of consumerism that permeates modern society, but also the toxic masculinity standards that promote violence and primordial, cult-ish styles of leadership. And although when taken at face value the movie seems unrealistic (and, of course, it is), the bases for why the anarchy ensues are indeed rooted in issues embedded within American culture.

Initially, it is imperative to understand the film’s angle on how the corporate world, social media, and commercialism more broadly, force groupthink and subsequent loss of identity. The narrator’s corporate work is quite dehumanizing (literally); he is asked to put monetary valuations on the lives of humans. More, the main characters’ continual desire to undermine corporate life, is epitomized by their bombing of a corporate headquarters. But the sensational rise of Fight Club, made possible through social media, hinges on the notion that Fight Club is the escape–the way to break away from the herd, where everyone lives the same life–and that hundreds of people are itching for a catalyst to break free.

Furthermore, the film takes a clear stab at how modern masculinity promotes violence and those who are least afraid of aggression are “natural leaders.” The glorification of violence in place of proper emotion management systems further satirizes how men are unable to mitigate their stress, further perpetuating how men fall into a distorted sense of masculinity.