NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
@dhag85
I get the feeling that he thinks women don’t actually need to be physically forced into those roles because that’s totally what they want, but if we pointed out women who didn’t and wouldn’t fill those traditional roles willignly, he’d say they are “abnormal” or “brainwashed by feminists” (though who brainwashed those feminists who brainwashed the other feminists? The world wants to know).
@RosaDeLava
Agreed, but I think advocating physical force is the unavoidable conclusion for MRAs and MRA-adjacent misogynists. What they oppose is, after all, women’s freedom and equal opportunity. They do argue that women should be made to obey the men in their lives and act according to imaginary natural laws – all against their will, in other words by force.
It takes a special kind of troll to say “feminists hate motherhood” and in the next breath accuse others of resorting to strawmen. 😛
@dhag85
Oh, yes, absolutely! The reasoning must be something like this “all women want to fill those traditional roles -> The ones who claim they don’t secretely do, or are abnormal -> The natural order must prevail -> We must use our natural talents (brute force) to make them fit into this mold”.
By Dar’s logic, men should have no desire to interfere in any way with the production or raising of children at all. It’s against (what he says) is the natural order for men to have any interest in children because women bear children, men don’t, and therefore only women have connections to children or feel the need to take care of them. Basically zie is saying men can’t love children. Or am I misinterpreting?
MGTOW is getting a bit of a reputation. I want to suggest a new acronym that more accurately reflects these people’s philosophy:
SomeMenGoingTheirOwnWayEnjoyingLife
SMEGTOWEL
You know who else has no use for bigger muscles? People who are dead because they picked fights for no reason.
Come on dude, try harder. Even if we’re going by a stupid biological-determinist model, animals go to huge lengths to avoid fights whenever possible. A needless fight is a big risk and a waste of resources for everyone involved. That’s why we developed this whole “communication” thing: So we didn’t need to throw each other through plate glass windows whenever we wanted something.
Dar: Oh quit this ridiculous essentialist argument about gender. If it were true that women were naturally submissive and incapable of hard work they’d also be incapable of wanting to do those things. They wouldn’t need you to enforce these ideals they’d just cling to them naturally.
Also there were plenty of older societies were sexual acts between the same sex were common such as Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt and Ancient China so by your own logic yes homosexuality is natural.
@Dar
It says something that you can’t even pick a correct example of “things that are clearly true and need no proof to be believed”. Rock isn’t hard, or at least not all rock is hard. Talc is a rock and you can flake huge pieces of it off with just your fingernails. Same with gypsum, and mica.
It’s called the Moh’s hardness scale, you insufferable twit, and it exists because rock and minerals have varying properties and aren’t a monolithic, heterogeneous whole. Considering that you’re supposedly a super smart science dude, I’d expect you’d know something that is elementary-grade geology. But then again, nothing that you’ve been spouting on this thread has been anything approaching correct, so maybe it’s not that big of a surprise.
*sees that this thread has been necro’d*
http://38.media.tumblr.com/ba9202a39b428b0006f7fd84d9cb127a/tumblr_noglfc0lg01uvcbh9o1_r1_400.gif
*sees that the troll is religious and full of teal deers*
Nvm.
http://33.media.tumblr.com/5a22938952ef069d3f406824f8434e68/tumblr_nnbthviyGD1riyvqbo1_500.gif
http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/files/2011/09/citation_needed.jpg
Unless you have some sort of background in anthropology, please give some goddamn sources to back up the bullshit you say. I have and I will continue to do so. It’s easy for me, after all, because (unlike you) the things I’m describing have actually occurred:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists
What? The historic fact that a whole village helps to raise the children is ‘a feminist assault on parenting’? I didn’t realize Katie was alive during ancient times!
This isn’t even about feminism. This is just basic history.
Funny you should accuse me of making a straw man argument when YOU are the one who brought up primates. You said that we should “look at primates” to see examples of traditional gender roles.
Yet, what I provided was an example of a primate (who happens to be a VERY close relative) where the female can be continuously sexually active.
What are the traditional (and toxic) gender roles of femininity? “Be pure, ‘ladylike’, chaste, non-sexually active, submissive”
What were the female bonobos like? Continuously sexually active.
THEREFORE, no, the primates did NOT show any evidence that would suggest that gender roles are inherent in nature.
Give an example of a passage that is biased and explain why it is biased. Or do you just dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your worldview?
And do tell, what are the ‘differences’ between the sexes according to that book? I’m curious, as I live in this place called “real life”, where men and women and non-gender-binary people are all individuals with their own unique likes/dislikes and their own unique aptitudes/flaws.
Um yes, someone who thinks that women are ‘inferior to men’ is being sexist. Just like someone who considers blacks to be ‘inferior to whites’ is being racist. I know, this might be shocking to you but that’s how things work in “real life”.
Y’know, if our dear little troll wants to pull the “gender roles are inherent in nature!” bullshit, I’d like to present the following:
Spotted Hyenas have a matrilineal social structure, where even the lowest ranked female is above the highest ranked male.
Here’s an article.
Here’s another.
So, maybe you should just submit to women because, y’know, because “natural gender roles” and all.
But of course, you’d never do that, because you see women as being inferior, but let’s just admit that your “because natural order of things” argument is bullshit.
Thank God, since chimpanzees practice infanticide.
Religious idiocy wrapped in bad spelling – is Darsehole just Chaucer Conspiracy Dumbass again?
(Err, bad wording, sorry – idiocy that happens to be religious.)
Did I manage to pop my head in just in time for yet another glossary troll? Guess it’s Doctor Who and then whack-a-troll for me! (Hi guys!)
Hey, Argenti! Welcome back!
Hey Argenti! We (or at least I) missed you! 😀
Give me a break. You know what’s vile? Giving actual war criminals a free pass, then suddenly pretending to be oh-so-concerned about civilian casualties in a conflict THEY ASKED US TO INTERVENE IN so you can mimic left-wing rhetoric in a pathetic attempt to play gotcha. Too bad conservatives suck at passing ideological Turing tests.
You can’t compare Libya and Iraq. Unlike Iraq, with its fabricated WMD issue, the problem in Libya was always evident. It involved a pathologically murderous tyrant who clearly laid out his intention to reduce a city of 700,000 to rubble and hunt the “rats” who opposed him from door to door and eliminate them. Khaddafi was bombing and strafing his own people and ordered the summary murder of all his own troops who refused to kill their own people. The Libyans asked for, and received, outside help. Iraq, on the other hand, was sold to the American people through months of lies, manipulation, and misinformation.
Don’t tell me Obama = Bush because he intervened to stop a dead certain humanitarian catastrophe from unfolding. Don’t tell me Obama = Bush when the IMMEDIATE fate of tens of thousands of people was in his hands and only the US had the power to act. That’s bullshit, not to mention false equivalency. It’s intellectually and morally lazy thinking.
WTF does Margaret Mead have to do with anything? I listed three examples of “traditional” non-Samoan societies structured along egalitarian/matriarchal lines as counter-examples to your generalizations, and that’s your rebuttal?
(and yet we’re the ones who describe people using outlandish black-and-white stereotypes…)
This might come as a shock, Dar, and I hope you’re sitting down for this…..Some feminists have kids! And love them! And enjoy being parents! Which has fuck-all to do with biological wiring!
That’s a pretty convenient circle of reasoning you’ve got there. Any counter-examples we come up with, of loving men who nurture babies and strong independent women who fight fires and go off to war, you dismiss as outliers, aberrations who aren’t filling their “natural roles”. I’m no statistician, but it seems to me there’s an awful lot of standard deviations out there in the world that aren’t conforming to your biological determinism. At some point all that hand-waving is going to give you a repetitive motion injury.
Also it’s fascinating, the way reactionaries mischaracterize legitimate critiques of how society perceives thing X as “OH, SO YOU HATE X AND WANT TO BURN IT DOWN”. I guess it’s an attempt to distract people from uncomfortable dialogue that might change something. Goodness knows we can’t have that.
/r/thathappened
Hi Argenti! Good to see you!
Not caught up but RosaDeLava — “I don’t think men’s rights are a joke, but I think the Men’s Rights Movement is.” I know we can’t upvote comments, and I know why, and agree with that, but that’s? I want to upvote it.
Buttercup — “If you view human bodies as simply utilitarian tools best suited for only one function, like can openers and wrenches, that might make sense, but most of us find it a bit reductive to be thought of as objects.”
Epically, wrenches can make can openers in a pinch, might manage the inverse with the handle of a can opener. Cuz even things designed for one purpose can be used for other purposes, so really, I don’t know how anyone is still dumbfounded that things not designed can do multiple things (oh, right, intelligent creator designed humans so men and women are strict categories with divine roles… blah, blah, blah *sigh*)
I was just going to laugh and our new friend using “charlatan” in a sentence, since that seems like a rather big word to go with some very recycled views, but then this happened:
“Besides, as feminists you’ve no business brining up transsexuals as you feminists hate them for “reinforcing gender roles”.”
And now I’m cranky. Cuz see, this non-binary trans person quite likes the folks around here, and is a feminist, despite thinking gender roles can fuck off. But I shouldn’t be surprised that the role of trans people in third wave feminism goes WAAAAAAY over Dar’s head.
But hey, caught up on this page!
I’m caught up! And hi everyone!
As for “feminists hate mothers”, or whatever version is being spouted today, one of my good friends just became an uncle to a teeny tiny preemie girl (she’s doing well), and as soon as that little ball of adorable gets out of the hospital this feminist is finding a onesie small enough to fit her! Because dude, kids are cute. Sticky, loud, but cute. I don’t intend to reproduce, but give me a kid to dote on and I totally will.
In things more interesting than the troll, we’ve accidentally adopted a calico stray who’s decided that since we keep putting out food, and toys, and my brother built her a kitty house, she’s going to plop in our yard and give no fucks about the dog (who got into a fight with a brick earlier, cuz he’s smart like that). What’s everyone been up to?
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs:
“You might need fifty posts to make your point, but I only need one GIF to make mine:”
Maybe if I didn’t get fifty morons spouting nonsense at me, then I wouldn’t need to write fifty replies.
RosaDeLava:
Ah, one monkley posts a dumb gif, another follows. Monkey see, monkey do.
“HEARTS PUMP BLOOD. STOP ACTING LIKE THEY ARE MORE RELEVANT THAN LIVERS. And souls or souls’ influences in the real world have never been observed. At least two of these things have fuck all to do with your argument.”
Ofcourse, a feminist AND a dirty atheist.
—-
“As for the whole utility of gender roles – Dude, you’re creating a dichotomy that has no bearing with the world we live in! We don’t behave like gorillas, and we don’t behave like bonobos. Our social structure is much more complex, and we we need people to have jobs other than “take care of children” and “beat the shit out of things”.”
Yes, but those other jobs are not natural, therefore we find men naturally gravitating towards one, and women the other.
best gender for doctors? generalyl men, because men are more interested in science.
Grocer? Probably women, though men are more organized.
Teacher? Dependes ont he subject.
Cleaner? Women.
Politician? Men, because men are the leaders.
See, the natural and undeniable differences between men and women cause them to naturally gravitate and be better at certain jobs than others.
—-
“And you’re not arguing with us – you’re arguing at us. You make assumptions about what we believe and we want us to argue for them, but that’s not how it works.”
No, actually, it is you and your circle jerk buddies who assume because I am anti-feminist I must be a closet MRA.
—-
“The reasoning must be something like this ‘all women want to fill those traditional roles -> The ones who claim they don’t secretely do, or are abnormal -> The natural order must prevail -> We must use our natural talents (brute force) to make them fit into this mold’.”
No, it is you feminist who want to use government programs and brainwashing to force women to abandone their natural instincts. Thus that silly “Take your daughter to work day”.
weirwoodtreehugger:
“What? I thought feminism was incompatible with religion. Now feminists are all Jewish. Which is it?”
more coy stupidity.
—-
“Women have always worked. Please stop getting your history from old TV shows. The Flintstones is not a documentary about Paleolithic people. Leave It To Beaver does not reflect what life was like for the vast majority of people.”
Some women have, but most no. Unless you’re refering to working on the home or family farm, in which case it is yet more coy stupidity.
—-
“I’m being coyly stupid? You’re the one who’s declaring your opinion to be the truth with nothing to back it up. You’re all circular logic and no facts. We’ve already explained to you that your idea of natural gender roles are neither on display in every culture or present in every other animal. So stop trying to use that as evidence. ”
You’re explained nothing, lemur brain.
Only in a feminist world does logic and realioty not exist. Let us all live in a fantasy world in which most socities has “equality” and women were soldiers and rulers as often as men, and men stayed home to tend the children as opften as women.
That’s the version of history according to feminists.
—-
“What we do know is that very few of them had stable enough settlements that would have allowed for women or anyone else to stay home a lot. Most of life would have been consisted of obtaining food. They didn’t have grocery stores 100,000 years ago.”
Means nothing. Even in non-agriculutral cultures, women are still the primary child-rearers, and women the fighters and leaders. That is so among the beduins, for example. The presence or absense of a “building called “house” makes no difference.
Which begs the question: Why can’t you moron feminists make up your mind. has history been one long patriarchal oppressij of women? Or has it been an egalitarian equal society whence you can draw inspiration? Which is it?
If the latter, then you have nothing to bitch about. If the former, then I prove my point that history shows a cler pattern os sex roles differences that point to a natural biological basis.
—-
Finally, as for your silly Etruscan news story, Note that you ignored the expert opinion, and decided to go with the moron feminist interpretation.
There is ZERO proof of Etruscans being an “equalist” society.