Manosphere

[Grayman]

You're just listing qualities that any individual in society could/should strive for, confidence, responsibility, independance, wisdom, self control, providing for family etc...why are these inherently tied to "masculine" behavior? Is it because you're being silly by any chance? They are things I want for myself and my mother and grandmother achieved these as well as their husbands. They are not inherently masculine traits and I don't know why you consider them such. Your posts so far on the forum hadn't given me the impression you were determined by such reductionist traditional world views. Oh well, you're still on a higher level than bock that's for sure. I suppose values such as compassion caring and empathy, non dominating behaviour are the feminine ones? I think everyone should strive for those as well, and again, I think we should stop categorizing them as inherently feminine, and even less categorize them as WEAK, because it would be a GOOD thing if they were integrated into societal structure, they w...

There is a natural divide between a man and a woman in ability and function. All people should strive for these qualities but men are more capable in some areas and women in others. Women are more naturally capable of nurturing than men due to their more inherent gentle qualities. Men are naturally more aggressive and they need to focus that.

 

[Cognisant]

Okay but you have to be naked. And we're roasting you on a spit and eating you after the ceremony.

You're going to spit-roast and eat me?

Damn that's my kind of party

 

[kora]

You're going to spit-roast and eat me?

Damn that's my kind of party

It's the tradition where I come from

 

[Bock]

The manosphere is largely a product of the fact that a job, for a man - no longer equals a significant other.

Female sexuality is no longer controlled, women can provide for themselves (and the state for any children). This means that that all the men throughout history (alot) that reproduced via mainly providing food/resources etc, no longer has anything to bring to the table (for women) compared to the "alphas" and their charisma/looks/status and/or dominance and so on.

The manosphere largely consists of these "betas" (that many of you [unknowingly or not] seem to deem as some sort of subhuman trash [AKA disposable]).

Also do notice that there is a world of difference between PUA and mens rights groups for example. PUA as a concept is generally about as tasteful as the women is works on.

 

[Bock]

On masculinity I've been keeping a vague eye out and it does seem anecdotally to be happening.

You believe the pretty-boy archetype to be a new thing? Bieber and Eastwood wasn't cherry-picking at all...

Even if it were true, that modern males are emasculated - where is the problem? You speak of anger and being on the edge, sure sounds like positive/constructive/harmonius traits.

 

[Bock]

@bock, I suggest you follow St proxyamenra's five simple rules and you will most likely improve the quality of your interactions and relationships with both genders? I would include a picture of an angry baby to sum up the level of your arguments but would rather not waste my time.

Ahh personal attacks and insults (after an OP with youtube-comment level content and "your mom jokes" no less), how unexpected. Sublime insight indeed.

 

[kora]

There is a natural divide between a man and a woman in ability and function. All people should strive for these qualities but men are more capable in some areas and women in others. Women are more naturally capable of nurturing than men due to their more inherent gentle qualities. Men are naturally more aggressive and they need to focus that.

Oh please women are from Venus and men are from Mars gtfo, we're all flesh puppets.

When you say this sort of thing you are in effect considering only biology and ignoring the existence and effects of culture, that is the fact that we self determine our behaviour and strengths. I don't think women should be taught to focus on being gentle and sweet and I certainly don't think men should be told to focus on being aggressive, everyone should strive for balance and be free of biases (idealistic I know but whatever), their are gentle nurturing men who dream of Baking cakes and having children and "agressive" competitive women who hate children, they should not be limited by stupid arbitrary neat little boxes society tries to fit them into. In doing so you are conditioning them.

Media depictions of men and women as fundamentally "different" perpetuates misconceptions. The resulting "urban legends" of gender difference can affect men and women at work and at home, as parents and as partners. As an example, workplace studies show that women who go against the caring, nurturing feminine stereotype may pay dearly for it when being hired or evaluated. And when it comes to personal relationships, best-selling books and popular magazines often claim that women and men don't get along because they communicate too differently. men and women should stop talking prematurely because they have been led to believe that they can't change supposedly "innate" sex-based traits. children also suffer the consequences of exaggerated claims of gender difference -- for example, the widespread belief that boys are better than girls in math. However, according to her meta-analysis, boys and girls perform equally well in math until high school, at which point boys do gain a small advantage. That may not reflect biology as much as social expectations, many psychologists believe. For example, the original Teen Talk Barbie ™, before she was pulled from the market after consumer protest, said, "Math class is tough."
As a result of stereotyped thinking, mathematically talented elementary-school girls may be overlooked by parents who have lower expectations for a daughter's success in math. Hyde cites prior research showing that parents' expectations of their children's success in math relate strongly to the children's self-confidence and performance.

 

[Yellow]

And of course women can't literally be bought (well apart from the obvious) and you can't go up to any woman you like and say "hey I'm rich, dump your boyfriend for me" because again that's just ridiculous. However if $100 notes were cash in a proverbial peacock's tail the bigger you tail is the more visible you are and your tail towers over your peers then that's clearly advantageous.

I'm not talking absolutes, I'm talking in general.

I think a distinction could be made here. Few people, men or women, are eager to live less comfortably because of a partner who can't pull his/her weight.

I wouldn't want to be financially tied to a man who couldn't at least support himself because I'm living my life, not running a fucking charity. Get it? A fucking charity? So, a man who has his own sufficient income or is building his future intelligently, is going to have an advantage in mate-pairing.

This is hardly an issue of needing someone to win my affection/attention with money. It's just dodging an unnecessary burden.

 

[kora]

Ahh personal attacks and insults (after an OP with youtube-comment level content and "your mom jokes" no less), how unexpected. Sublime insight indeed.

The your mum joke was a conscious decision to remain on your level, so you were the one who brought it there. I was actually hoping you were a troll.

Omfg here we go betas and alphas hierarchy. Good to know your worth as a person is determined by how much you can fuck.

 

[Grayman]

Oh please women are from Venus and men are from Mars gtfo, we're all flesh puppets.

When you say this sort of thing you are in effect considering only biology and ignoring the existence and effects of culture, that is the fact that we self determine our behaviour and strengths. I don't think women should be taught to focus on being gentle and sweet and I certainly don't think men should be told to focus on being aggressive, everyone should strive for balance and be free of biases (idealistic I know but whatever), their are gentle nurturing men who dream of Baking cakes and having children and "agressive" competitive women who hate children, they should not be limited by stupid arbitrary neat little boxes society tries to fit them into. In doing so you are conditioning them.

Media depictions of men and women as fundamentally "different" perpetuates misconceptions. The resulting "urban legends" of gender difference can affect men and women at work and at home, as parents and as partners. As an example, workplace studies show that women who go against the caring, nurturing feminine stereotype may pay dearly for it when being hired or evaluated. And when it comes to personal relationships, best-selling books and popular magazines often claim that women and men don't get along because they communicate too differently. men and women should stop talking prematurely because they have been led to believe that they can't change supposedly "innate" sex-based traits. children also suffer the consequences of exaggerated claims of gender difference -- for example, the widespread belief that boys are better than girls in math. However, according to her meta-analysis, boys and girls perform equally well in math until high school, at which point boys do gain a small advantage. That may not reflect biology as much as social expectations, many psychologists believe. For example, the original Teen Talk Barbie ™, before she was pulled from the market after consumer protest, said, "Math class is tough."
As a result of stereotyped thinking, mathematically talented elementary-school girls may be overlooked by parents who have lower expectations for a daughter's success in math. Hyde cites prior research showing that parents' expectations of their children's success in math relate strongly to the children's self-confidence and performance.

This divide has existed in every society I know of until the modern age. Biology has a larger role. Yes society has a role but it is you who is ignoring the importance of biology.

edit: I don't disagree with the math portion but there are many jobs that are not pursued by women even after encouraging and incentives because women just don't want those jobs or are unwilling to work them.

I am not saying aggressiveness in men should be encouraged but that it should be directed and focused toward more fruitful goals instead of society vilifyvilifyying men for being what they are.

 

[redbaron]

Whether man or woman, people are attracted to people they identify with and who have value to them. Value isn't limited to money and it's very rarely the major factor either.

All peoplehave their own sets of goals, dreams, abilities, worldviews, beliefs and passions - call it their, 'core'. That core is what people want to define who they are, they don't want to be pigeon-holed by gender. People naturally are going to be more attracted to people whose 'core' resonates with their own. That doesn't mean the same or even similar, they just have to connect.

Then there's value. Money is certainly one of them but it's just a mistake to assume that it has any real power on its own. If you don't believe me, answer me this: why is your best friend the person you consider your best friend? If you tell me it's because of money, you're either full of shit or a borderline sociopath (or both).

The thing is that people will pick up very quickly when they don't either identify or find value in someone. If there's only one present, the relations are unlikely to go very far either.

Regulars to the manosphere should probably put less effort into justifying their lack of success through Darwinian pop psychology and more effort into being a person with their own identity and having more than just monetary value.

 

[Grayman]

Whether man or woman, people are attracted to people they identify with and who have value to them. Value isn't limited to money and it's very rarely the major factor either.

All peoplehave their own sets of goals, dreams, abilities, worldviews, beliefs and passions - call it their, 'core'. That core is what people want to define who they are, they don't want to be pigeon-holed by gender. People naturally are going to be more attracted to people whose 'core' resonates with their own. That doesn't mean the same or even similar, they just have to connect.

Then there's value. Money is certainly one of them but it's just a mistake to assume that it has any real power on its own. If you don't believe me, answer me this: why is your best friend the person you consider your best friend? If you tell me it's because of money, you're either full of shit or a borderline sociopath (or both).

The thing is that people will pick up very quickly when they don't either identify or find value in someone. If there's only one present, the relations are unlikely to go very far either.

Regulars to the manosphere should probably put less effort into justifying their lack of success through Darwinian pop psychology and more effort into being a person with their own identity and having more than just monetary value.

Your best friend isn't likely to share their money while a life partner is generally expected to.

 

[Brontosaurie]

well, friends are usually a network of people who cope with similar life conditions together. it's a pretty stagnant business. it's a different situation from mating and/or settling, which is about progress and optimization. males want the best genetic material they can get and women want the best social status and safety net of power they can get. they have a common, real pursuit of well nurtured, well adapted offspring. men want potential, women want outcome. roughly. i'm not denying overlap or making any of those blatantly stupid claims make-believe egalitarians like to think i'm making.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Honey boo bootler

 

[Brontosaurie]

Honey boo bootler

judith butler eh?

top charlatan

 

[Cherry Cola]

the problem with the manosphere is they take some tendencies which are there and then blow those out of proportion match their misery and account for their failure to develop themselves as people, they need to be fighting a beast because they can't handle the truth

can't get a woman cause you have no job? lol bs
you should have a woman just because you have a job? wut

what proxy wrote was great stuff imo, particularly the parts about having something you want to do in life and not having your life be all about your desire and failure to get love and sex

 

[Teffnology]

Trying to "pick up" women at clubs is a terrible idea. If that "scene" is not "them", I recommend not going there, period.

Proxy's tips:

1) Be a decent person, not "nice".
2) Have a backbone. Always doing what other people want will not lead to success in any endeavor.
3) Set a life goal and strive towards it. Having a purpose makes you more attractive.
4) Don't make your life about attracting the opposite sex.
5) Don't be creepy.

Edit:

I forgot to mention that people should have faith in Jesus.

I agree with this approach and can say that every time I have gone looking for love I have gotten lost but when I am minding my own business is when love approaches me.

I have no idea what a Manosphere website is nor do I care to learn. I think this approach is pretty comprehensive and it is counter to what a lot of self help material will suggest. Having something going for yourself is generally better bait than any other form of flirting. If they can see you have direction then that lures them in more than anything.

On a side note for @ProxyAmenRa, totally off topic from the thread but you threw it out there to begin with. What would you say to someone that doesn't have faith in Paul aka Saul of Tarsus aka author of 2/3 of the New Testament?

 

[Grayman]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xYKICw&usg=AFQjCNHTvFJPfLIaTwRYYq1o-0fw08QdDA

Interesting document from some university studies...

There is even a section about a link between crime, depression and testosterone. They are sure to specify that testosterone does not directly affect 'physical aggression' but instead of form of dominance/assertiveness that can be acted out in various forms.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

There's some good advice in this thread.

Except :

• True pick up artists are most likely antisocial and won't care about the opinions of people online
• "Nice" guys aren't trying to get girls by acting nice but complaining that their natural unassertive, timid etc personality traits aren't attractive or sufficient (i.e. they're an obstacle).
• The problem is commonly a lack of social skills, which take much more than words to learn and apply.
• Misogynous themes exist outside of the lonely ineffectual basement dweller stereotype, in fact that's probably the person who matters the least when it comes to the global treatment and position of women.

"Get your priorities straight" - The advice I've found most helpful

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Way to show how you are above all that, because you have gained some kind of perspective and understanding that is unobtainable to people you are referring to.

And you will hold onto this precious little edge of understanding that allows you to look down on everyone else...

Or maybe someday you will gracefully appear in another thread to give the common folk some more of your condescension.

Oh it's not like that at all blarraun.
It's just that I don't have any hope for them, their future, or their ultimate effect on society (or me D: ). One either laughs as a detached observer or wallows in anxiety over the ultimate implications. I do not claim to be superior; I only cast myself as the spectator. It's the only way to make cynicism fun.

And of course women can't literally be bought (well apart from the obvious) and you can't go up to any woman you like and say "hey I'm rich, dump your boyfriend for me" because again that's just ridiculous. However if $100 notes were cash in a proverbial peacock's tail the bigger you tail is the more visible you are and your tail towers over your peers then that's clearly advantageous.

I saw this exact metaphor in a video the other day. 1:10

Spoiler

WARNING: This is by the same people who did DyE - Fantasy, so it's not for the faint of heart. Don't watch if you can't handle sex terror or dismemberment.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFuWPhlsyEI&t=1m10s

 

[The Gopher]

I certainly don't think men should be told to focus on being aggressive, everyone should strive for balance and be free of biases (idealistic I know but whatever), their are gentle nurturing men who dream of Baking cakes and having children and "agressive" competitive women who hate children, they should not be limited by stupid arbitrary neat little boxes society tries to fit them into. In doing so you are conditioning them.

Hmm I'm not so sure about baking cakes but I have always dreamed about being pregnant.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Misogynous themes exist outside of the lonely ineffectual basement dweller stereotype, in fact that's probably the person who matters the least when it comes to the global treatment and position of women.

Misogynous, misandrist and misanthropic people in general, especially in the seats of power and influence.

Oh it's not like that at all blarraun.
It's just that I don't have any hope for them, their future, or their ultimate effect on society (or me D: ). One either laughs as a detached observer or wallows in anxiety over the ultimate implications. I do not claim to be superior; I only cast myself as the spectator. It's the only way to make cynicism fun.

Your stance isn't alien to me.
I'd say this is exactly what makes the observer superior to the participating in the spectacle of their choosing and that was the intellectual high ground I wanted to address. There is emphasis on personal attack and separating the hopeless out that a simple observer could avoid. You seem to identify with your actions, so I will thank you. I wanted to recognise your position somehow, don't mind it for all you care.

 

[Architect]

Oh please women are from Venus and men are from Mars gtfo, we're all flesh puppets.

For what it's worth, hold off on that opinion a bit until you pass menopause.

It's hard to see the profound impact that sexual programming is on us until you go through the full cycle. The problem is because we're still growing when it turns on in adolescence, we pretty much forget who we really were as children. The sexual us is really us ... until it starts to turn off again. This time however we've got our full mature facilities and prior experience.

Unfortunately, we're not flesh puppets but evolution puppets.

 

[Grayman]

Omfg here we go betas and alphas hierarchy. Good to know your worth as a person is determined by how much you can fuck.

A flair for the drama?

A lot of people require social status in order to feel confident. Social status is a complicated dynamic that takes on many different forms and is location specific. In high school it can be reduced to 'getting a piece of ass' or for girls 'getting the alpha/popular guy'. This whole dynamic is very evident in the youth were girls will flock over one singular man in their own "social group' and ignore the other boys until the bickering and back stabbing subsides. High School is a can of fuck you up in the head.

Past high school the social constructs are much more complex and I wouldn't believe that such a hierarchy continues.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Your worth isn't determined by how much you can fuck, but if you don't get to fuck like ever and you can't communicate with the opposite sex and long to bond but feel like too much of a weirdo for that to be a possibility then of course you're gonna be miserable

and misery needs channeling

 

[Pyropyro]

Your worth isn't determined by how much you can fuck...

That's the problem. The manosphere's members (and society to a lesser degree) sees it as a "valid" means of asserting one's masculinity and indirectly, one's worth.

I think there's at least four ways one can be considered as a man (you can add more):
1. Sphere of Influence (leadership, networks etc.)
2. Resources (money, fame etc.)
3. Attractiveness (self-explanatory)
4. Violence (I'll use a tame example; Consider the Batman movie character Bane, he is ruthless but you can't argue that he is girly)

1 and 2 are quite tedious to do and will need actual maturity to work (even by then you still need some good fortune on your side). 3 is a bit easier while 4 needs actual nerves of steel (or utter desperation) for your typical young person. I remembered Elliot Rodger. He's someone who tried to go through the attractiveness route but failed miserably so he resorted to going for the violence route.

 

[RaBind]

misery needs channeling

The Manosphere is explainable and even arguably appropriate.

Spoiler

Everyone else gets to whine about how bad they have it don't they? How is this case any different? It's not an easy issue either. You can't really justify looking down on the members as pathetic, unless you somehow have grand knowledge about the subject, and can tell these whiners exactly what it is they need to be rid of their problems. Until then the Manosphere as far as I can tell addresses an issue as real as any other. No different from the poor complaining about their situation, and the well off looking down at them. The game is obviously always rigged.

I'm not saying that the losers are blameless, they certainly can be blamed for not doing all the infinite possible things they could've done and doing all the things they shouldn't have. But there is no one type of loser. They are all very different. There isn't a single shared attribute that you can put the blame on.

There is one loser out there that is exactly just like you except for the fact that he/she is a loser. You can't do anything for him/her, because you're really no better then him/her. If the game were fair then you yourself should also be in his/her scenario, but the only thing you can say is that the game isn't fair. You really can't explain it any other way.

So the whining really is addressing a real issue of randomness relevant in all aspects of life. The real thing I don't get and have an issue with is this thread. What's the point of this thread? is it to whine about other people whining? That's sort of the impression I get, and if indeed this is true then this thread and the attitude behind it is the real problem. If I'm wrong can someone tell me wtf this thread is about?

 

[Pyropyro]

The Manosphere is explainable and even arguably appropriate.

Spoiler

Everyone else gets to whine about how bad they have it don't they? How is this case any different? It's not an easy issue either. You can't really justify looking down on the members as pathetic, unless you somehow have grand knowledge about the subject, and can tell these whiners exactly what it is they need to be rid of their problems. Until then the Manosphere as far as I can tell addresses an issue as real as any other. No different from the poor complaining about their situation, and the well off looking down at them. The game is obviously always rigged.

I'm not saying that the losers are blameless, they certainly can be blamed for not doing all the infinite possible things they could've done and doing all the things they shouldn't have. But there is no one type of loser. They are all very different. There isn't a single shared attribute that you can put the blame on.

There is one loser out there that is exactly just like you except for the fact that he/she is a loser. You can't do anything for him/her, because you're really no better then him/her. If the game were fair then you yourself should also be in his/her scenario, but the only thing you can say is that the game isn't fair. You really can't explain it any other way.

So the whining really is addressing a real issue of randomness relevant in all aspects of life. The real thing I don't get and have an issue with is this thread. What's the point of this thread? is it to whine about other people whining? That's sort of the impression I get, and if indeed this is true then this thread and the attitude behind it is the real problem. If I'm wrong can someone tell me wtf this thread is about?

Beats me. The OP hasn't answered me about that at all.

I did get to be a bridesmaid though which is nice.

 

[Cherry Cola]

@Rabind: Nah, everyone else don't get to whine about everything without being called out on it. And besides it's not the whining, it's the blaming that makes it a problem and puts it in the same folder as racism. Hencewhy the comparison of the manosphere with the poor doesn't really hold up. Moreover, the argument you're using when you're saying "everything is rigged" is just that the world and its outcome is predetermined and thus its denizens cannot effect their fate, hence their whining is justified, which begs for an Ad Hitlerum. Can we really blame Adolf?!

The point of this thread is likely the same as the point of a thread meant to battle racism.

 

[Brontosaurie]

the manosphere* is about lamenting the state of the world. it's not derogatory toward women outside of a vulgar evaluation of its (blatantly true) theoretical explanations derived from sexual selection. it is not comparable to racism because racism is primarily a structural oppression resulting from xenophobia, and only secondarily the contents of prejudice and blame by which this operates. these people who live in the manosphere are not capable of oppressing. they are themselves fringe creatures, their opinions taboo and disgusting to majority. their opinions cannot functionally constitute sexism.

the manosphere points out irrationality in female mating preferences, well in the whole reproductive system really. i think the manosphere is an intriguing critical impulse which may be pivotal in overcoming the bio-norm, along with transsexuality.

i have a girlfriend and even if i didn't i wouldn't give a shit about stupid horny girls dissing me for someone maler but i sympathize with these guys anyway. they are underdogs and they expose the repressed sensations of collective humanity.

*i like this word although i pronounced it with a longer narrower "a" which sounds kind of like in "yawn" which in my language makes the word sound like a portmanteau of manic-sphere which really conveys associations of obsessive-compulsive rather than manic due to folkloric distortion, thus giving the impression of someone who is trying to justify his pathetic and misguided over-zealous and disproportionate ambitions by imagining himself a large and imposing spaceship which is of course called something like sphere or dome or drome, hovering forth. it is an amusing image of someone who is so clearly dissonant in the external/internal, partaking in various activities and unwittingly providing a special atmosphere wherever he goes. i have pictured two people who are both Si-doms, although i realize that the aforementioned characteristics may also apply to myself.

 

[Teffnology]

So basically a male counter to the Lena Dunham's of the world...

Why didn't you say so earlier I would run for President of such an organization. Only partially kidding...

 

[RaBind]

@Rabind: Nah, everyone else don't get to whine about everything without being called out on it. And besides it's not the whining, it's the blaming that makes it a problem and puts it in the same folder as racism. Hencewhy the comparison of the manosphere with the poor doesn't really hold up. Moreover, the argument you're using when you're saying "everything is rigged" is just that the world and its outcome is predetermined and thus its denizens cannot effect their fate, hence their whining is justified, which begs for an Ad Hitlerum. Can we really blame Adolf?!

The point of this thread is likely the same as the point of a thread meant to battle racism.

What branto said, plus fuck Adolf anyway.

Maybe a comparasion with hikimoris is more accurate, then again japan also has the issue of a growing number of young people classifying themselves as asexual and maybe that's more akin to this.

There's not much other people can do for these people. This forum being for intps, it's easy for us to say they just shouldn't give a fuck, but that doesn't do shit for them in terms of solving their problem, we're just saying 'fuck you, you'll just have to live with it.'

I'm not blaming predeterminism or even hinting at it, but acknowledging the fact that losers have to exist, and a large chunk of their identity is based on being a loser. Most of these losers aren't even bad guys like branto said, quite a fair bit are just decent guys that are just plain unluckily and are whining about how being themselves doesn't make them attractive. Aging going back to the post earlier that blamed the baby boomers generation for hyping the perfectionist idea of love and relationships. A handful of the guys are also very successful, as there is bound to be purely as a numbers thing, outside of this specific domain.

 

[Bock]

misery and account for their failure to develop themselves as people /QUOTE]

Yes because everybody can live the american dream and everyone is equipped for success and so on. 100% focus on the faults of these people, no thoughts outside of that. Comparing it to racism is absolutely ridicilous and just shows your bias even more. I don't remember you being a feminist warrior, what happened?

Bronto nails it btw.

 

[Cherry Cola]

ugh, 2 good post by bronto, gonna need to write long reply bah

 

[kora]

Beats me. The OP hasn't answered me about that at all.

I did get to be a bridesmaid though which is nice.

@rabind What is this thread for? What any thread is for: to create debate and discussion. I'm whining about people whining yes, I don't have an issue with people whining their opinions on the Internet,(especially as I am allowed to whine back .) The whole point is for me to be able to see what people think, and anonymously on the Internet people tend say what they think, this is also the reason I read manosphere sites. And look how it's working, I have a whole spectrum of opinions on a subject that affects me.

I can't write more now but I'll come back later.

 

[Cherry Cola]

the manosphere* is about lamenting the state of the world. it's not derogatory toward women outside of a vulgar evaluation of its (blatantly true) theoretical explanations derived from sexual selection. it is not comparable to racism because racism is primarily a structural oppression resulting from xenophobia, and only secondarily the contents of prejudice and blame by which this operates. these people who live in the manosphere are not capable of oppressing. they are themselves fringe creatures, their opinions taboo and disgusting to majority. their opinions cannot functionally constitute sexism.

Nature may hold a certain primacy, but humans function in a complex social context, ideals and what is considered attractive varies. Sure, the attributes which nature promotes are not as fleeting as those which we nurture through culture, but that doesn't mean that culture is any less powerful at a given time. Moreover adaptibility is a standout trait of the human species, this has implications which are ignored by the manosphere's selectively chosen biological data. Adaptibility means that the value of traits will wary. The manosphere ignores this, it needs to be dogmatic to fulfill its purpose. Because of this it loses its ability to convey its valid content. The manosphere does promote sexism, its not only the shunned fringe creatures which carry these views. They did not originate from an interpretation of darwin, they absorded darwin. Although proportionally few of the denizens of the manosphere are capable of sexism in real life that is not to say that none are; furthermore, they spread vitriol and hatred online and that is not insignificant today. It seems to me that you admit their crime but downplay its severity. I'm not really interested in the severity. I'm interested in the fact that there is indeed a crime.

The manosphere is comparable to racism not in proportion but in principle. The manosphere has targets, these are jocky males and pretty much all females. They are considered primitive and rulebound, easily summed up with a few simple principles derived from a misinterpretation of biology. How is this not similar to racism again? They took our *guess what to insert*!

the manosphere points out irrationality in female mating preferences, well in the whole reproductive system really. i think the manosphere is an intriguing critical impulse which may be pivotal in overcoming the bio-norm, along with transsexuality.

Yeah, the manosphere is part of an ongoing analysis of gender and sexuality and it might develop into something more positive if it can take what it has going for it while leaving the dogmatism that springs from the fact that it is in purpose essentially a collective defense mechanism moreso than a body of thought, as the latter has sprung from the first. Currently I don't see the manosphere doing much to overcome bio-norms however, ironically it asserts a simplified and dogmatic version of them, which is not comparable to transsexualism which requires a more nuanced view of sex and gender to grasp.

i have a girlfriend and even if i didn't i wouldn't give a shit about stupid horny girls dissing me for someone maler but i sympathize with these guys anyway. they are underdogs and they expose the repressed sensations of collective humanity.

If you have no luck with women the right thing to do is not to group up and pigeonhole women and sexuality into a system which perpetuates your failures, even if some of the basis for said system is valuable. You don't make your life all about your failure to attract women, you don't consciously spend a bunch time reinforcing said beliefs by seeking out others with the same belief; thereby, donning a worldview within which there is no hope and you will always remain the victim of circumstances which are outside of your control. It's like spending your day repeating a mantra saying "I am shit, the world sucks, nothing has meaning", it's not constructive, it's slightly pathetic, because everyone struggles, but some overcome, and they do so by trying and failing, by experiencing the negative emotions you over and over until they learn to deal with them in a rational way. Ergo they get out and try and fail until they learn, it sucks but that's life. The manosphere knows this too, that's why they need to project and blame, that's why they can't settle for the fact that nature hasn't dealt them a favorable hand in regards to their ability to attract mates, and blow it up into utter hopelessness. Such an interpretation is just as bad as what you'll find among many feminists.

The manosphere is not constructive, it does not focus on solutions, and its theory is simple and has stagnated long ago. There is no development of anything. It's denizens have taken upon them the role of the perpetual victim. Wherever there's a victim someone is to blame, and so they can project their failures unto the external in order that they needn't recognize the extent of their own part in the matter, thus that which they find is to blame must be blown out of proportion in order that the misery they suffer may have a counterpart. This is what the manosphere is about, and its why it fails. It is also recognized intuitively by those which are not part of it which is a part of why it is met with such scorn along with the fact that it challenges prevailing norms.

Besides, what does not in a sense, expose the repressed sensations of collective humanity?

@Bock: Thank you for illustrating another issue. The manosphere asserts a false dichotomy wherein critisizing it means you are automatically guilty of being a feminist warrior. I have this thing I try to do which is about not choosing sides but to instead try and see things the way I think makes sense. Of course this has the effect of making me the enemy of both feminists and the mano' crew which insist on making it an us vs them battle.

I don't know what your point is with the american dream. You gotta try harder man.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The manosphere is not constructive, it does not focus on solutions. There is no development of anything. It's denizens have taken upon them the role of the perpetual victim.

I believe TRP is part of it and TRP focuses on relationship techniques(albeit sociopathic ones), aren't those solutions? If people are accepting their inefficacy and trying those techniques aren't they rejecting victim status?

Of course this has the effect of making me the enemy of both feminists and the mano' crew which insist on making it an us vs them battle.

Along with Adaire's apparent sentiment I would caution against riling up or expressing disdain over something so nebulous(i.e. the Manosphere). You're entitled to your attitude but it'd be pigeonholing as well to assume any male who relates to relationship issues is automatically misogynistic or victimizing themselves as part of a collective.

Why that matters because then you are the one who would be making it us vs them, by taking a preemptive/ignorant moral stance. When all a person was trying to do was air their issues like anyone else in any other situation, or are males not allowed to talk about their relationship problems?



What else you stated about the manosphere I don't disagree with it's just I think some issues are being missed or ignored.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I assumed a definition of the manosphere which is a lot more specific than simply "any male who relates to relationship issues". It's a pretty established phenomenon imo.

It's not just males airing their issues. It's a subset of males airing their issues in the light of a relatively specific set of ideas.

EDIT: Nevermind dude my bad! Brb gonna edit again.

I thought the manosphere was a term Higs made up to point at this phenomenon but it actually exists. But that's not it according to wikipedia. Though it seems close enough.

The content of these online forums varies from self-improvement,[citation needed] bodybuilding,[citation needed] and antifeminism to the seduction community's advice for pick-up artists [1] and various men's rights forums.

Those places come close to what I was talking about anyway. But I may have gone too far in my generalization of the manosphere. But I kinda doubt it when I read on.

The manosphere has its own distinct jargon. Manosphere websites commonly use red pill and blue pill imagery as an analogy; accepting the manosphere's ideology is equated with "taking the red pill", and "blue pill" refers to those who disagree with their philosophy. The terms "alpha male" and "beta male" are also commonly used.[1]

^such black and white

"nearly everyone in the manosphere agrees on ... the extensive tearing of the social contract by decades of feminist tinkering."

^Oh noes, shit changes, you can't act like it's the fifties bohooo. Yeah okay actually it was exactly what I thought I was referring to anyway.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

My point wasn't that the "manosphere" was more virtuous than it seems.

I'm saying that the attitudes expressed thus for seem to have no regard for the accidental inclusion of males who just happen to have social/relationship issues who have no connection whatsoever to those groups.

 

[Cherry Cola]

where are they being included? : O

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Actually (generally speaking) young men appear to be becoming more emasculated. In Japan it's clearly been occurring and much discussion over there on the phenomenon.

So for these poor guys and those pathetic comments, maybe it's not society but them who are losing the mojo.

That said I think we have enough of each side due to the majority of the forum being INTP and thus hopeless in relationships while maintaining narcissism complex's.

I don't think they are the issue. There is a larger number of boys growing up in broken homes without a male figure. Emasculation is an occurance due to having only a female parent being someone for the male to make comparisons from.

^ The topic inadvertently shifts from the actual manosphere(dedicated forums for the topics and such people who frequent those forums) to males in the general. And comments are being made as if they're the same groups.


In retrospect I agreed with a lot of what RaBind said. Especially:

The Manosphere itself imo is quite small. It is only though the internet, and its demographics, that you are able to gain so much expose to it.

What's the point of this thread? is it to whine about other people whining? That's sort of the impression I get, and if indeed this is true then this thread and the attitude behind it is the real problem. If I'm wrong can someone tell me wtf this thread is about?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Ah I see what ya mean. I agree with RaBind about the Manosphere being small. Sort of. I can't tell its precise size, but the manosphere is not to be mistaken for males being more emasculated nowadays which is a much bigger thing.

Still I don't think the thread is pointless. There's that fatalism I was talking about, like in Cogs post and that needs to be adressed imho :O

 

[OrLevitate]

manosphere

 

[OrLevitate]

omg grilled cheese sandwich!

 

[RaBind]

I actually thought the manosphere was the parts of the internet culture that is beta male centric, which is very representative by such themes as the friendzone memes.

This might shed some light into why I've been mumbling on so much about the "loser" identity that exists within and perpetuates the manosphere.

*I'm now going to refer to males with social/relationship issues as losers, because I've used that term for so long now and it just makes a lot more sense if that's the meaning it has, in this context. My apologies if this makes you a loser, if it helps it probably makes me a loser too.

I want to maintain that the manosphere is a loser centric space. The argument behind this being that non-losers simply have no business to do with it (the menosphere). The manosphere functions as a space for consolation, advice and everything in between for exactly those individuals who are losers. The PUA, red pill and all loser centric advice forums and sites alike exist, because of the failures of the individuals' to achieve positive outcomes with women. The expansion in the mesosphere and concerns of it's growth may be due to the concerns of the growth of losers especially with young adults.

If the alpha & beta male distinction were solely defined by the individual's success with women, alpha males being those who succeed and beta being those who don't, then the menosphere is a beta male centric space. The beta male wants exactly what the alpha wants, but is just someone who can't have it.

 

[OrLevitate]

Look, I don't think you understand. Sally doesn't like Sam. Shit is FUCKED UP.

 

[redbaron]

Look, I don't think you understand. Sally doesn't like Sam. Shit is FUCKED UP.

LOL

 

[Bock]

@Bock: Thank you for illustrating another issue. The manosphere asserts a false dichotomy wherein critisizing it means you are automatically guilty of being a feminist warrior.

Not at all, what makes you a "feminist warrior" in the previous posts is the aggressive tone and linear content.

I have this thing I try to do which is about not choosing sides

Problematic considering how you (initially at least) responded to the idea that there might be more to this "manosphere" than weak character/stagnation/projected failure.

but to instead try and see things the way I think makes sense.

Don't we all?

Of course this has the effect of making me the enemy of both feminists and the mano' crew which insist on making it an us vs them battle.

Not sure about this, your earlier posts (not read the text wall yet) was quite a handful of "beta"-bashing if you ask me.

I don't know what your point is with the american dream. You gotta try harder man.

That "man up" or "develop" doesn't work in every case (or even most cases), especially not in a context where the goalposts are constantly moved (male value is relative etc).

Responses in bold because messy quote system. I'm gonna try to respond to your text wall but i'd like to explain the inherent value thing first in case somebody didn't get what i meant.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah quote system's a pain. I'ma just reply

I have an aggressive tone a lot of the time, it doesn't have to do with this topic specifically. As far as linear content goes, I'm not sure what that means precisely. How is it linear? What exactly am I saying that you find to be wrong?

There is more to the manosphere than that, but I'm focusing on what I find to be its defining features.

Tis true, it was pretty pointless to write that part about trying not to pick sides on this forum where people aren't given to jump on bandwagons.

I'm not saying "man up", I'm saying the denizens of the manosphere should stop actively dragging themselves down and keeping one another there. I mean surely a large part of the manosphere's denizens are depressed, they's got issues, they can't just man up. But they can take a step at a time. And one step is to stop actively reinforcing hopelessness and negativity.

Also, I put more effort into that wall than the other posts :P

 

[Pyropyro]

...
I can't write more now but I'll come back later.

I hope you have a more succinct reply about your perspective when you get back.