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.
Argenti: He’s got a weak NTS in re his “he has a GF, ergo PUA isn’t all about pump and dump, so charges that lots of PUAs are pump-n-dumpers is unfair.
It’s really hard to keep up with the totality of fallacies. Heck, it’s hard even keeping on top of the one’s he’s using in just the positions he’s staking out in regards to my responses, they are so layered, and nested that hitting one just seems to give a sort of credence to the rest; because they were ignored he can pretend they are therefore validated.
Then again, he contradicts himself in the very act of trying to prove he didn’t say things he did. It’s not even one sentence to the next where he fails to be consistent, it’s in single sentences.
Here’s an ad hominem in the wild.
“Then again, he contradicts himself in the very act of trying to prove he didn’t say things he did. It’s not even one sentence to the next where he fails to be consistent, it’s in single sentences.” — Quite true, this part is just hilarious:
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.
Why are we discussing PUA? Are we not “wasting time” on that? Which is ignoring that “markets himself sufficiently well” =/= “elected position”.
Hm…I was taking that all as a fallacy of composition (Adam is a PUA, Adam has a girlfriend, thus PUAs do want girlfriends) — it’d be an NTS if I tried then claiming that Adam is, in fact, not a PUA because no true PUA wants a girlfriend. When in reality my point was that great, you found one guy with a girlfriend, that does jack all to prove all PUAs want more than the pump and dump. Particularly hilarious as he said most men want just sex, aka the pump and dump. Logic, he fails it so hard.
Though, this is all about as relevant to the glossary as the current exchange rate between American and Canadian dollars. Actually, you’re headed up there you just said, so I think the exchange rate might be more relevant XD
I’ll knock off playing spot the fallacy if you really think the incompleteness of it gives weight to the many fallacies I can’t be arsed to list, I’m still going to call him a peddler of fish for his fondness of red herring though. He probably can’t pull an actual NTS anyways, wtf makes a PUA a PUA?
A wild ad homenium appears!
Manboobz used “spot the fallacy”
It worked!
(Am I getting the form right here? Was never much of a pokemon fan)
I like your list of fallacies. I don’t think they have any effect on my dealing with them. He seems to treat all comments a something close to sui generis. My problem is that he has so many fallacies nested in his thoughts that I can’t pick them all out, so he treats one of those not neutralised as if it were therefore validated; even as he says the ones spotted aren’t really wrong.
He’s using is at least +5 Armor of Intelectual Impervium
Nononono, I meant to say that the troll attempted to counter your excellent listing of his fallacies with ‘well, you committed ad hominem, so I’m right.’
Adding ‘Argument from fallacy’ to your list of fallacies he’s committed.
You in fact showed him very particular non-fallacious arguments for your point of view before blowing away his fragmented counter-arguments. Totally different.
“+5 Armor of Intelectual Impervium”
*counters with a clue-by-4* Hmm…or maybe dementation, that might help here. (Maybe the rest of us just need Eyes of Chaos?)
I still can’t tell if the sui generis issue is idiocy or intentional misrepresentation — that previous “well that’s rapey” comments somehow don’t apply to his next rapey statement is either a defense maneuver or pure idiocy. And treating every statement as its own thing is basically classic gaslighting, like we can’t just scroll up >.<
When to tell a conversation has seriously degraded beyond all point: Everyone starts breaking out the Pokemon and D&D references. 😛
Btw Argenti, the last line for your Pokemon thing should be “It’s super effective!”.
ShadetheDruid — the pokemon references are a common reply to NWO (his primary attack is ARGLEBARGLE btw), and my dementation reference is vampire the masquarade not D&D, but yes, all hope is lost when it becomes fandom time. Also, thanks for the pokemon correction.
Maybe he’ll go away if we get all LoTR geeky again?
Howard — kk, got it now. And nice call on the argument from fallacy, I wasn’t even trying to spot the formal fallacies (like I said, I’d thought he’d need an actual argument to manage those). Conditional statements, particularly proper ones, are MISANDRY!! after all XD
I mostly meant pecunium’s +5 Armour reference. Since i’ve never actually played Vampire the Masquerade (insert shocked gasp here), that reference sort of shot past me. 😛
The ArkTroll must be eating healthy breakfasts–boy does he have stamina. And imperviousness.
*applauds Argenti and Pecunium in particular for a splendid game of Bowling with Trolls*
So nice you can all gather here and pat each other on the back about how much smarter you are than stupid men. The way you write and the comments you allow suggest that you really hate men and see it as a mission to denigrate them; not just misogynists, but all men. And you wonder why people are distrustful of feminists and find them their arguments to be reductive.
The feminism movement is no longer fit for purpose, and nor are your opinions. You won’t thank me for saying this, but you are as stuck in the past as the cavemen who think women belong in the kitchen. We need equality, not attempts to raise one sex above the other, and neither your blog nor your vocal users reflect modern society.
Is that also true of male feminists and male manboobzers, or will you just pretend they don’t exist?
Argenti:
“Hm…I was taking that all as a fallacy of composition (Adam is a PUA, Adam has a girlfriend, thus PUAs do want girlfriends) — it’d be an NTS if I tried then claiming that Adam is, in fact, not a PUA because no true PUA wants a girlfriend.”
Adam is not just any PUA he is a world class teacher of the art. The idea you cant have a girlfriend in the art yet still listen to people who do is stupid. Since you think PUA are stupid its no wonder you make this error. Its still wrong but how would you know? How many PUA:s do you even know of?
“When in reality my point was that great, you found one guy with a girlfriend, that does jack all to prove all PUAs want more than the pump and dump.”
1. You cant use the word “all” when doing general statements. Its most PUA:s in that case
2. Your point depends on he being just like everyone else and not an elite-teacher. Most PUA:s simply do not accept the kind of hypocrisy evident in the american political left. Also in academics as the late Michael Focault supporting revolution Iran while being homosexual thus the society he supported he could not even visit.
“Particularly hilarious as he said most men want just sex, aka the pump and dump. Logic, he fails it so hard.”
Problem is what i said is most guts want both sex and relationships. Only fewer girls qualify for the second. Well known PUA-intructor David DeAngelo calculated about 80% of the guys he was teaching want a relationship – they just dont want it with any woman who they want to sleep with.
Aktivarum: Adam is not just any PUA he is a world class teacher of the art. The idea you cant have a girlfriend in the art yet still listen to people who do is stupid.
Good thing no one said that then. Have you got a point?
. Since you think PUA are stupid its no wonder you make this error.
Why is this non-sequitor in here? Ah, I see, it’s so you can feel insulted; it’s a faux-outrage, based on things which weren’t said. It’s not been said that PUAs are stupid, just deluded, or conned.
Its still wrong but how would you know? How many PUA:s do you even know of?
Personally… I’ve known about half a dozen. That’s not counting the sterling examples (such as yourself) who grace us here to tell us how wrong we are about them.
Most them are about as intellectually capabable of describing The Art, as you are. Then there are the online gurus such as Roissy. All in al, it’s true, brains online don’t seem all that evident.
I’ve been attributing it to the vapidity, and a vacuity of Game, but I’m open to the idea that I’ve been fooled by the aptitude to debate of those who write about it.
Problem is what i said is most guts want both sex and relationships. Only fewer girls qualify for the second. Well known PUA-intructor David DeAngelo calculated about 80% of the guys he was teaching want a relationship – they just dont want it with any woman who they want to sleep with.
What you’ve said has been all over the map; The thing is, that the PUAs, aren’t “teaching” the majority of men. They are also selling a product (what passes for their “knowledge of women”), and so it’s not clear they are being completely honest in their estimations.
The last line, “They just don’t want it with any woman they want to sleep with” is more evidence of the objectification we have been saying you (and the PUA crowd) engage in.
To sum up, you are still wrong.
So, Pete you have examples of this male bashing? From this site?
Yeah! I am so much smarter than men… I am! I mean, it’s true that the smarter I get, the smarter men get. And therefore that can never actually be true. In fact, the more education I get here, the smarter men get. And the more education I give here, the smarter men get.
Great. Now my head hurts.
Um… I used to. But since I discovered feminism it’s been a lot easier to love me for who I am. Thanks for asking.
In what way do you find their arguments reductive? Citation needed.
What purpose. The original purpose? The fricking pay gap? Gender-based violence? Any of a million causes that get me hot under the collar? Why is it not fit for that? Citation needed.
Gee, thanks. My opinions are not fit for purpose.
Wait, the purpose of having opinions is… um… citation? What are opinions’ purpose?
You’re damn straight we need equality, not one sex raised above the other.
And that’s why the MRA movement, who wants to take the vote away from women, who want women permanently enshrined as second class citizens, are the worst.
And why feminists, who actively seek to raise everybody up as equal, are more needed than ever.
Thanks for expressing your opinion that we need more feminism! Awesome!
Oh, I get it, you’ve confused ‘misogynist’ with ‘man’, that explains this little silliness.
I love the faux rational types the best, personally.
Given the Republicans, and various other conservatives, attempts at co-option, I’m actually not as worried about this as you seem to think I am, personally.
‘Post sexism’. Of course you are. One assumes you want us to ignore the war on reproductive rights in the USA, the continuing wage gap and the prejudices against women in STEM, the way the best-paying and most prestigious jobs seem to always end up in the hands of men, the disproportionate rate of violence against women….
Pecunium:
“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”
Since feminist superstar Gloria Steinem told thousands of girls not to have romance and marriage and then herself had romance and marriage I can see how this would be true in your group (assuming leftwing pc feminist theory people) However this doesnt mean every other person works the same way.
“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?”
No I am saying most guys want both sex and relationships and most girls do not qualitfy for the second – no more than girls think sex with most guys is something they want btw. PUA basically means guys dont have to be in relationship to have sex. Read this article in NYT
“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.”
You are missing the (PUA) point. Most guys are today due to social and sexual needs with the wrong woman (for them) from the start! No book in existance can give them a good relationship with their girlfriend. That ship has sailed! Such a book you describe would be pure bullshit for guys. For a guy to have a lasting and meaningful relationship with a woman he must have the CORRECT woman. To find her he needs to have romantic encounters with lots and lots of women and this is skills PUA teaches.
I believe the reason you dont get this is due to the popular thing today being the “Therapy crowd” who wanna adress bad relationships and domestic violence with crap like “sensitivity training” They also makes up loads of excuses for women in bad relationships not to leave them.
“But he’s selling, “how to get in their pants, no matter what”
Not at all! He is selling, Meeting lots of women who want to have sex with him and keeping the one he like the best (if she wants to keep seeing him). You cant keep a woman you dont have sex with, and you cant find the right woman for you if you dont meet lots of women.
“The reasonable person would think the people paying for that, are looking for that.”
No that depends on how much hate they have for the male gender. Its basically guys paying to have more power and choice. The opinion “reasonable” people have thus depends on whether they think guys handle power good or assume the less power guys have – the better.
Why is everybody accusing me of self-hate today? I said I got over that! You can get over it too.
Aw… Did we hurt your feelings Pete?
Have you got anything better to offer than telling us we’re poopyheads because Aktivarum can’t argue his way out of a paperbag with a blowtorch?
But please, tell us what’s actually wrong with the arguments we’re presenting, instead of just not liking it.
What’s, “reductive” in what we’ve said (and what is it you mean by that)?
How is it our opinions aren’t, “fit for purpose”
Where, pray tell, are the cries for women to be raised above men?
No. If he was teaching men how to tell the truth, that would give them more power. Teaching them to ‘neg’–where’s the power in that? The power to manipulate and decieve? It’s not MEN having that power I object to–it’s your definition of power in the first place that’s a problem.
Aktivarum: Care to respond to any of the long posts you suddenly stopped caring about (the one’s about consent being in the NO state as default, and how not acting on that assumption is proto-rapist behavior)?
Somehow I didn’t think so.
How about the explanations of ad hominem?
Didn’t think so either.
What about the arguments from fallacy? Or the ad populem or the goalpost shifting? What about the red-herrings (my little seller of fish)? How about the problems of measures of attractiveness that aren’t measuring attraction? Or the use of force that isn’t force?
Yeah, I can see why you don’t want to go over that ground again.
Onwards then.
“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.”
Since feminist superstar Gloria Steinem told thousands of girls not to have romance and marriage and then herself had romance and marriage I can see how this would be true in your group (assuming leftwing pc feminist theory people) However this doesnt mean every other person works the same way.
Non-sequitor. You are saying that because your guy has a Girlfriend, that means those who listen to him talk about how to get sex from women, even when they are resistant are actually there to find girlfriends/wives.
That’s completely different from Steinem, thirty years ago, saying one thing, and then changing her mind. But that sort of personal change (and the context of a large gap in time between one thing and the other; irrespective of any misrepresentations of the context of the time in which the first things were said: and what exactly you are intimating she said [I note a decided lack of quotation] are par for the course).
It’s not that I think every other person thinks the same (go ahead, show us where I said such a thing) so much as I think that people who are buying Peanut Butter Cups like to eat Peanut Butter Cups, and people who are buying tips on how to get no-strings sex, are looking for no-strings sex.
No I am saying most guys want both sex and relationships and most girls do not qualitfy for the second
What the fuck does this mean? “Most girls don’t qualify? I can’t make sense of this (more than I can’t make sense of lots of what you write)?
Qualify? Most? The fuck? Is there some exam, as for physicians, which approves women for relationships? Do they get a little tattoo they can show people to show they deserve to be someone’s girlfriend? Maybe a chip/pin card they can hand off to get scanned?
Because really that’s batshit. I’ll accept that most women won’t put up with the bullshit you seem to think is needed to make her worth you spending your, oh so precious, time on. Honestly, I think they are coming out ahead.
PUA basically means guys dont have to be in relationship to have sex.
That’s what Gloria Steinem was telling women, forty years ago; which not half a dozen thoughts ago you were mocking her (and me) for. Which is it… sex withtout strings, or men in search of “twoo wuv”?
You are missing the (PUA) point. Most guys are today due to social and sexual needs with the wrong woman (for them) from the start! No book in existance can give them a good relationship with their girlfriend.
Whut? (I’m so glad I’m not trying to have this conversation in public… the looks of dazed amazement on my face would lead people to think I was having a recurrence of Bell’s Palsy).
Let’s break this down.
Men are in relationships with the wrong women.
Right. It’s not that people are in the wrong relationships with each other. It’s that the women aren’t right for the men. I’ll grant that you don’t, quite, seem to argue the women ought to change; for that you get half marks. That’s still a failing grade, because the completely clueless nature of the assumption that it’s all the woman’s fault in such a situation is a loss of full marks, and the oddity of blaming it all on “social and sexual needs” means that there’s no way the recovered marks can bring you past 50 percent.
That ship has sailed! Such a book you describe would be pure bullshit for guys.
What book did I describe?
For a guy to have a lasting and meaningful relationship with a woman he must have the CORRECT woman. To find her he needs to have romantic encounters with lots and lots of women and this is skills PUA teaches.
hunh!? To have a lasting relationship with a woman a guy has to have lots of casual sex?
Here I thought it was finding someone who shared enough of one’s worldview, and looked toward the same theories of living together; as well as making the neighbors think they need to work on their sex-lives more; because of all the happy noises and wall-pounding they keep hearing.
But maybe that’s just my experiences coloring my judgement.
I believe the reason you dont get this is due to the popular thing today being the “Therapy crowd” who wanna adress bad relationships and domestic violence with crap like “sensitivity training” They also makes up loads of excuses for women in bad relationships not to leave them.
One strawman, and one lie.
I want to address DV with jail-time, and a zero-tolerance of it in the social realm. But you don’t know that because I’ve never mentioned any of it; so you made some shit up to pretend you have a justification for ignoring what I am saying about the greased-pig bullshit the PUA Pushers are selling being about tricking women in casual sex.
And the last implication, that feminists make up, loads of excuses for people in bad relationships not to leave… (and if it wasn’t about feminists, what was the point of lumping it in with the rest of your balderdash about why I [and the rest of the therapy crowd] can’t understand the pig’s ear you think is a silk-purse, which is Game?) is utter nonsense.
Again, find the supporting evidence. Show a feminist here who supports staying in a bad relationship. Feminists… those no-fault divorcing harpies, who are all about abandoning men and living on the fat of the land (in the form of welfare checks) are telling women to stay in bad relationships?
Go on… That’s right up there with Conservatives being in favor of income equality, fair wages, a broad social safety net and progressive taxes up to the highest levels of income.
“The reasonable person would think the people paying for that, are looking for that.”
No that depends on how much hate they have for the male gender.
No. It assumes that when they buy peanut butter cups, what they wanted was peanut butter cups.
I’ve yet to see a PUA guide that was, “this is how you meet someone and establish a lasting relationship.” What they say is, “this is you get a hot chick to fuck you. If she’s any good at it, you can keep fucking her. When you get bored there are more hot chicks to fuck.”
So, when I see that, I figure the guys who spend hundreds of dollars to go to seminars, are looking for hot chicks to fuck, not women to have relationships with.
Argenti:
“Personally… I’ve known about half a dozen. That’s not counting the sterling examples (such as yourself) who grace us here to tell us how wrong we are about them.”
Ok, at least not zero. Are any of those actual PUA:s qualified teaching in the field or are they just students?
“Most them are about as intellectually capabable of describing The Art, as you are.”
PUA is based of results. Describing in intellectual way would mean – nothing. Reminds of what Thomas Sowell says in his book “Intellectuals & Society”
“Then there are the online gurus such as Roissy. All in al, it’s true, brains online don’t seem all that evident.”
Is Roissy who we should listen to? Not David DeAngelo, not Juggler, not Adam, or any other of the people who actually matter?
“I’ve been attributing it to the vapidity, and a vacuity of Game, but I’m open to the idea that I’ve been fooled by the aptitude to debate of those who write about it.”
You base your opinion about peoples ability in one skill on how good they are on something completely unrelated? Ever heard of the halo-effect? Same error.
Which doesnt affect the argument at all – the point was the message given by PUAs themselves – not whether it was true or not.
“The last line, “They just don’t want it with any woman they want to sleep with” is more evidence of the objectification we have been saying you (and the PUA crowd) engage in.”
Actually it has nothing to do with PUA or me, its normal male behavior. Men have sex with more women than they have relationships with. Thus opinion on this is opinion on male gender in general. When “Male Studies” begin 2013 you can get this info in intellectually describing language.
Pete can’t tell the difference between man-bashing and mocking misogyny. Here’s a hint, Pete: they are two different things.