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.
Oh and “a St George” appears to be sex with her on top…and obvious enough they never remotely give enough context to get that without google. Cunny and frigging should both be obvious.
Fine, I’ll humor your stupid question. No, of course it doesn’t mean consent to sex. It also doesn’t mean that if “you” are a man (or genderqueer, or anything else). Someone doing those things might very well consent to sex, or they might consent only to cuddling, or they might consent only to sleeping, which, radical as it may seem, is a pretty common thing people take off their clothes and get into bed to do. You don’t get a sex cheat code. You have to actually confirm that the person in question wants to have sex, not just say, “Hey, you got naked and lay down! Now anything I want to do is magically fair game even if you say no!”
“Does me going to bed and you following and undressing mean you consent to sex or not?”
Define sex, not to me, to the person following you to bed — should your partner agree that that sounds good, then you have consent (until your partner says otherwise, or you do something you haven’t asked about) — otherwise? Nope, not consent, kind of rapey, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Aktivarum — Both those false accusations resulted in jail time for the women making the claims, so what exactly is the problem here?
So, to be honest, I haven’t read any of the wall-o-gibberish posts, but my eyes glanced across this little treasure.
Using force is NOT the same as forcing somebody. Really.
Learn to English, gibberish troll.
Argenti:
The problem is although they were proven false, Bostonian claims/pretends they were “possible false” Also they resulted in jail time for the women not because of consent existing (what you claim is important) but because the sex was recorded proving it was sex the girls wanted (what I said is important).
Thus I get the impression women could take back consent even after sex</strong and you doing nothing about it (making recordings needed). This mean the "consent" you are asking for is worth absolutely nothing for the guy while she wanting sex is worth everything cause that is something that cant be taken back.
I don’t suppose ethics or legality come into the equation of whether or not to secretly film people having sex?
Dave hasn’t banned this one yet?
“Using force is not the same as being forced/forcing somebody.”
Well, using force is indeed not the same thing s being forced, so congratulations on that part? I’m not sure if the “being forced/forcing someone” part means that this person doesn’t understand how the “/” symbol is used or if it’s just more of the usual context is irrelevant, these things that appear to be opposites are actually the same bullshit.
Since we’ve already done bra sizing, maybe talking about feminine hygeine products could be the next way to banish MRA trolls? I’ll start – tampons, pads, or Diva cups?
katz:
As opposed to ethics of legality having consensual sex and then pretending to be raped? (A much worse crime) Thats a tough one! Also the recording need not be a film. Several false accusations have already been thrown out of courts after they heard audiorecordings.
ArkTroll’s definition of equality:
Wow.
Just.
Wow.
In the present plane of reality I inhabit, equality is equal access and rights — and my equality has nothing to do with what you think or care about (or what any other individual thinks or cares about).
You’re not talking about equality.
You’re talking about your personal relationships with women.
And why the fuck you think a bunch of strangers on a blog’s FAQ would care is beyond me.
No wonder you’re so boring.
@Argenti Aertheri — Sorry to keep derailing the topic (and the troll), but I’d just like to add that “The Dragon on St. George” as a euphemism for the woman being on top has in fact been around at least since the 17th century, as it was recorded in a slang dictionary from 1699.
Akitivarum: That deepends on whether you mean offensive to you or offensive to me. I was not planning to be offensive but off course anything I say can be interpreted as offensive by any rigid interpretation of the kind found in churches.
Whut?
What I see is people “rigidly” demanding citations, and internal consistency. I see you providing damn all of both, and doing a lot of bobbing and weaving when called on it. Take that comment of yours. It was in reply to me asking you which of the listed as bannable offenses you intended to commit; when you said you were afraid you would be banned.
Are you know trying to say you thought you would be banned because the commenters here offended you? Neat trick that.
Children believe this cause they dont know better. If I say “The heat is making me buy Coca Cola” it doesnt mean I was forced to buy Coca Cola. It doesnt mean I had to do it.
Had to… not chose to. It was an issue of need; and it was imposed on you (though the use of Coca-Cola implies an aspect of choice, the real issue is one of dehydration). The lack of choice is the issue. And your reply about children is nonsensical. If they say “You can’t make me, because they don’t know better it means they can be made to do something which is against their will and the verb, “To make” means to compel, to force.
The smell of ripe mangoes makes me retch, as with Kate Winslet it’s an involuntary (and hence forced) reaction. (You really aren’t very good at this counter-example stuff… Does Sweden have some form of Open University? I am sure they have classes in logic and argument. You might want to look into it.)
Using force is not the same as being forced/forcing somebody.
What? Let me try this with some other concepts.
Using a car is not the same as drving/being driven. Nope, still nonsense.
Fighting is not the same as resisting/being resisting by someone. Nope, still nonsense.
Doing ‘X’ is not the same as doing ‘X’/having ‘X’ done, is nonsense no matter what noun/verb is inserted.
Offering you a better price and conditions if taking it now is that a crime?
It is when my actual, informed consent, wasn’t obtained. The trick was to ask a question, “Would you like to have the chance to pay a lower rate for phone service?”, to which someone would say yes. All the rest of the conversation was persiflage, because the interest in the possibility of a lower rate was interpreted to mean an agreement to switch phone service carriers, even if the person later said, “No”.
It was fraud.
Not at all I was saying she decides what she puts effort in and this will decide what value she has to offer
No. It’s you not seeing anything other than looks. It’s you assuming that because when she goes out for a night on the town, and dresses up; uses make-up, gets her hair done, that all she cares about is looks.
It’s not her, it’s you.
Everyone are real persons. However I am not looking for a pal I am looking for a girlfriend thus I need to know if she is interested in me sexually.
Like I said, sex first, person later. If she’s a good fuck, then you’ll consider the odds of her being interesting enough to be a girlfriend; that or you don’t want a friend, just a pretty fuckbuddy you can show off to the world.
Because, while sexual interest is important to me in a partner, the partner aspect is what make them partner material. If I’m thinking in terms of, “girlfriend” I’m not going to ignore the things which make them interesting people, just to get to the fucking.
And you keep saying you need the sex first.
Celine Dion thinks playing a song making Kate Winslet want to throw up is legitimate? I have replied to your semantics regarding the words “make me want”
This is more nonsense. You are trying to say that Celine Dion intended to make a song which nauseates Kate Winslett? Ok, show the links in the causal chain. Show the intent to induce nausea in Kate Winslett on the part of Celine Dione.
Good luck with that.
I think equality is legitimate and reasonable. Women dont care about those things yet you think I should cause I am a guy and not a girl?
What things? Could we get an antecedent here? Really. The lack of one takes whatever theoretical sting I might have felt about the charge of my “white knighting by pedestalisation” right out of it. You probably still get your, “debating a male feminist points” in the MRA Merit Badges though.
So basically your defence is I am wrong cause what you write is common verbal abuse with no relevance at all to the argument? Ok
No. Again with the lack of attention to detail. I am making two, parallel, arguments (well, I am making two parallel streams of argument). One is the nonsense you peddle as fact.
The other is the merits of you as a human being; based on things you have said in the course of your explanations of how men and women are.
I am not saying your arguments on those subjects are wrong because you are a terrible human being. I am saying the are wrong because they are nothing but logical fallacies, unsupported assertions and self-contradiction (when they aren’t incomprehensible gibberish).
I am also, completely unrelated to that, saying you are a blight on the face of humanity in your interactions with women (at the very least) because you have the empathy of a fungus.
We have a separate argument on “make” where I do not agree with your interpretation: Now your new argument is “make/trick” being the same thing? I do not agree with that interpretation either. If I wanted to say trick I would say trick.
You said, “make her want something she didn’t want”. You’ve said misrepresenting yourself, in pursuit of that is a legitimate ploy. That’s trickery.
You could have said, “persuade her that she does want it”. You have persistently chosen to not do that. I have, from that evidence (thousands of words, all on the same theme), drawn what I think a reasonable inference, and so made my conclusions.
No, relative to which they think is more good looking and less. This would be equally true if all of the guys were ugly. Key words being more/less.
And the “more/less” you chose to use was, “if you don’t want to fuck them, don’t give them a nine or a ten”. So you are saying the ratings are about how attractive the men are. Hell, what you say right there has in it that it’s about what they think is sexy… “this would be equally true if all the guys were ugly”
That means it’s about what is “attractive”. Since the study pretends to be about what women find attractive (and says it’s not looks, but money”, even the study says it’s about what is attractive.
Why are you trying to deny it?
“Married to the implicit sense that consent exists, and the woman has to prove she has revoked it, you are, at the least, possessed of latently rapist behaviors.”
I think thats a ridiculous interpretation as well as very careless use of the word rape.
Ridiculous where? You say that women have to say no. That until she says no, a yes is assumed. That’s an implicit sense of consent.
It’s not a careless use of rape. I never said rape. I said rapist behavior. I was being decidedly precise. Someone who doesn’t believe the default state of a potential sexual partner is “no”, is possessed of beliefs which are potentially rapist. You admit to acting on that sort of belief. Someone who acts on such beliefs has behavior patterns which are potential rapist.
It can be expressed as a set of syllogisms.
S1
P1: The Default State of Consent is No.
P2: Consent must be obtained to pursue sex.
C: Any act for which consent is not obtained is not consensual.
S2:
P1: Sex without consent is rape.
P2: Assuming consent always exists can lead to non-consensual sex
C: A person who thinks negative consent must be declared is more likely to have non-consensual sex, i.e. rape.
Q. E. D. Since you think that non-consent must be declared, you have potentially rapist beliefs.
Cliff: But the real problem is that this rule exists only in your head. Some guys might have an imaginary rule that entering their apartment is consent to sex; some might have the imaginary rule that sitting on their bed clothed is consent to sex. Because I’m not psychic, I don’t know when I’m “consenting” to sex according to your personal rules.
I’ve got a pretty good idea, from reading all his words (which, amazing as it is, is harder than slogging through 692 comments in the Brandon on Marrage Epic):
You are consenting so long as you don’t convince him you don’t want sex.
Until then it’s, “token resistance”.
Aktivarum:
A1. Adam does bla bla bla
A2. I dont care if he (Adam) is the Pope
A1. He (Adam) is (as the Pope) high in hierachy in an elected position.
A2: hahaha I know lots of The Pope you are wrong… lets waste lots of time on the Pope
A1: We are not discussing the Pope.
Except that your example fails because The Pope, is elected. He’s representative of a group’s shared beliefs.
Your dude isn’t that. He’s a snake-oil salesman. He can have a girlfriend, a wife, any number of lovers. None of that means squat.0
You are trying to say that the PUA’s who attend his seminars might want girlfriends, because the guy who is selling techniques to get one night stands has one?
There isn’t even correlation there. There sure as hell isn’t causation. If he was selling a book, “How to establish a lasting, and meaningful, relationship”, then you’d have a case.
But he’s selling, “how to get in their pants, no matter what”.
The reasonable person would think the people paying for that, are looking for that.
Aktivarum: – I think equality is legitimate and reasonable. Women dont care about those things yet you think I should cause I am a guy and not a girl?
Since you repeated this are we to assume it’s a free standing thought? That you really think equality is reasonable (not evident from your comments here) and that women dont’ want equality?
Citations fucking needed.
Aktivarum: The point was me asking you. Does me going to bed and you following and undressing mean you consent to sex or not?
No. Not for anyone.
That was easy.
Pecunium already pointed out it’s more than that. But notice; Akky here wants to put forward beliefs, and when people point out that it’s horrible, and that believing them would mean you treat people in terrible ways, well, then we’re commiting ad hominem attacks.
No.
Argenti touched on this too.
If you say you believe striking people in the face is okay when they’re hysterical (studies show it doesn’t help, you know) that means you’re a person who’s likely to strike fellow human beings, which is violent. It means you’re likely to act in a violent way.
That’s not ad hominem. It’s simply following your argument to its conclusion.
Something Akky seems terribly incapable of.
Argenti: re the Pearl: The age of consent in Victorian England was appallingly low; I seem to recall the big push was to make it 14, instead of 12.
Katz, et al: I ought to be packing (off to weddings in Canada this afternoon), so I am not likely to take down my book on Victorian attitudes to sex (they liked it, what a shock), and the language people writing to each other actually used.
I’ll try to remember when I get home.
Hm, more Victorian time traveler shall we? (This is just too much fun!)
Aktivarum —
“The problem is although they were proven false, Bostonian claims/pretends they were “possible false” Also they resulted in jail time for the women not because of consent existing (what you claim is important) but because the sex was recorded proving it was sex the girls wanted (what I said is important).
Thus I get the impression…”
It would appear, from your incomprehensible arguments, if they can even be called arguments, that you have a great many impressions, and the vast majority of them are utterly incorrect. For example, in this case, I get the impression that Bostonian, and likely others, decided not to bother with another round of irrelevant links from you and instead commented upon the absurdity of video recording all your sexual acts (video recording! Why what a wonderful use of that new invention they call a “camera” — such a device could make for wondrously interesting sexual affairs, assuming, up of respect and basic human decency, that all parties involved consent to this “video recording”)
Aktivarum re: Pecunium — “You really aren’t very good at this counter-example stuff… Does Sweden have some form of Open University? I am sure they have classes in logic and argument. You might want to look into it.” — Alas my misplaced time traveler self is a bit confused on this matter, but it would appear that one “MIT” has Open Courses on exactly these topics (and many more! Amazing thing this “internet”, all this information right at your fingertips.)
Ithiliana — “In the present plane of reality I inhabit, equality is equal access and rights — and my equality has nothing to do with what you think or care about (or what any other individual thinks or cares about).” — Most grand! I was beginning to doubt that anyone in this strange time had any sense of decency remaining at all!
Sorka — Please, oh kind derailer of trolls, continue with the derailing. (and thanks for that history lesson!)
Pecunium —
“What things? Could we get an antecedent here? Really.”
Oh please don’t confuse him further, it is already abundantly clear that the concept of “antecedent” is lost on him; I am, however, most pleased to learn it has not been completely lost.
“Except that your example fails because The Pope, is elected. He’s representative of a group’s shared beliefs.
Your dude isn’t that. He’s a snake-oil salesman. He can have a girlfriend, a wife, any number of lovers. None of that means squat.”
Unfortunately, it was I who bought The Pope into this, when I said that I do not care whether Adam is The Pope, for he is still but one person and thus merely an anecdote. Indeed, what Adam may or may not have in his personal life is irrelevant both to what PUA “teaches” (sells) and what Aktivarum said “most men” want (causal sex).
“The age of consent in Victorian England was appallingly low; I seem to recall the big push was to make it 14, instead of 12.”
I am quite aware, however it would appear this is now potentially considered to be pornographic material of children, and thus may be illegal — I am not really comfortable posting what may be child porn in an open forum. (And I think I just broke my Victorian time traveler thing as it completely collided with my actual thoughts on the matter)
The Pearl is quite raunchy however, so “Victorian attitudes to sex (they liked it, what a shock)” would seem entirely correct — enjoy the weddings!
“If you say you believe striking people in the face is okay when they’re hysterical (studies show it doesn’t help, you know) that means you’re a person who’s likely to strike fellow human beings, which is violent. It means you’re likely to act in a violent way.
That’s not ad hominem. It’s simply following your argument to its conclusion.”
Indeed, and even if that ended with “It means you’re likely to act in a violent way, and you’re a terrible person.” it is still not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be more like:
“striking people in the face is okay when they’re hysterical (studies show it helps, you know)”
“I don’t care what studies say, you’re just an asshole either way”
versus
“Your studies have serious flaws and are misrepresented, and you’re also an asshole.”
Nuance appears lost on this one.
Argenti: I don’t think that’s a good example of ad hominem. It’s simple denial,. married to insult.
I’ll to vary it
“striking people in the face is okay when they’re hysterical (studies show it helps, you know)”
He says there are studies to support him but should we listen when we know that he used to skip Sunday School so he could go to the library and read Judy Blume’s, “Are you there God? It’s me, Margaret”
Hey, you know, he totally ignored the part of the study I linked to that contradicted him!! In favor of red herring out the part about who men find attractive, because he didn’t think that proved anything. The part where women actually were rating men who should have rated higher just the same as they rated other men–lower, in fact–he ignored it!!
Huh, imagine that. And he threw up such a wall of bull that he got away with it. Man!! If I didn’t know better I’d speculate that he actually realizes his logic is crap and is trying to cover up.
And that’s also not an ad hominem argument. It is, though, an insult. You can ignore that part if you like, counter-arguing. But if you ignore the argument because of it, well, then that’s like admitting you have no argument.
Hmm.
BTW, when the second troll came in, for a minute there I thought he was going to make a semi-valid point. One of the classic fallacies is saying ‘my opponent has made a fallacious argument, therefore my position is true.’
Which is, of course, not true. It doesn’t even prove my own position untrue if I use a fallacious argument. It fails to prove my point.
Aktivarum attempts to pull this one, adding it to his list of fallacies. “You did an ad hominem, so my position must be true.”
Truly, he is coming close to rounding out a complete set of logical fallacies. If he does that, then he wins the prize on this fabulous game show, ‘can you make it to a full minute without saying bottom.’
Pecunium — yeah that’s a much better ad hominem, I was afraid mine was still just a boring old insult, not an actual fallacy (or at least not that one).
Howard — I stand by my “you peddler of fish!” until he stops replying with red herrings.
Re: Victorian views on sex — I’m reading on the Donner party and so many of the surviving children got marred at (or before) 16 — some were orphans, so it doesn’t appear they had much choice, but some ran off to marry at 16, I’m not really surprised then that <16 was considered "old enough".
Hm, I missed these last time —
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so — basically all the PUA stuff
Tu quoque (“you too”, appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position[62] — all those replies about how it doesn’t matter what feminism says, what do *I* do (like pro-choice people can only be pro-choice if they’ve had abortions or something)
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[15] — ignoring rape by coericion because rape = force to him
Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. — two false rape accusation justifies filming all sex
Probably more, I’m not even looking at formal fallacies because he’d need to present a coherent argument for that. I don’t think he’s going to pull either appeals to fear or flattery though (the former might actually get him tossed, the later would require flattering us and that just isn’t going to happen). Nor will he likely Godwin, I’m guessing he’s been online long enough to know how that will go.
But no, I never said I was more right because I was playing spot the fallacy, just that he was an extra special kind of wrong. I am waiting for a No True Scotsman about PUAs though.