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.
ithiliana: From a quick question in class, to tests, to paper topics, to all sorts of things–poor questions lead to that same conclusion.
Yeah… we have different ideas about what makes a poor question, but it’s a similar decision tree once the initial poison enters the system. Usually in a classroom what happens is the student makes an assumption, and doesn’t manage to clarify it (often a misunderstanding about a definition/concept, which they don’t try to fix/make sure they understand).
My students usually (because what we are teaching is how to interrogate) ask a question with a poorly identified noun, and assume the answer is about the noun they didn’t specify, and get all sorts of lost.
“Lots of PUA:s have girlfriends. I just showed one of the high ranking. You not accepting rank means you decide rank doesnt matter in PUA. You however have no say in how PUA view rank. PUA neither obey nor listen – to you.”
See above, also, pretty sure that last “sentence” is any appeal to force. (Threats are both a fallacy and explicitly against the comment policy, so don’t try to score a point for an appeal to force.)
It’s also a strawman. I didn’t say I didn’t accept the idea of rank (I don’t think you did either). What hasn’t been shown is that PUA have rank (he also said, in re the Pope sub-thread, that rank is based on some sort of external metric of success. Again, this means there must be some body which grants these ranks. As yet this is an undefined, non-specified group: the only example we have is Aktivarum; who isn’t telling us what criteria he is using, merely saying we don’t understand the subtlties of PUA hierarchies).
Do you? I’m not the one who keeps making grand sweeping statements without calling them generalizations. (And again, what’s MLTR?)
I think it’s PUA Speak for Badly Done Poly.
Aktivarum: I missed this the first time it came up, “Not at all, first you demonstrate, then you describe what happens in an own lingo PUA uses other people cant understand. Thus you can discuss how to pick up a girl in front of her and she still dont get what is being said. Non-PUA people not understanding is intentional.”
If you are being all honest, and not trying to trick her, why do you need a jargon she can’t understand?
Me, I tend to say, “I’m interested, wanna fool around?”. If it works, we fool around. If it doesn’t, I ask someone else. Lot less stress, lot more success.
“Even if he did… Iceland still ought to be awash in Crime, and Sweden too.
They aren’t, so his theory it (wait for it)…. A load of fetid codswallop.”
Loving the fish metaphors, and you’re right. Wasn’t his initial point that this proves Sweden is better anyways?
And I think your entire relationship would just confuse him, not just the friends => more than friends part. I’m looking forward to the ev-psych on poly-relationships. Oooh, and MLTR must be monogamous LTR then, which might explain why I just want to laugh at every “argument” including that term — not really a big fan of monogamy myself, ymmv but he’s insisting it cannot, that’s not normal.
“As to the award, you earned it.” — Perhaps, but I’m incredibly honored all the same. Ironically, I was playing this while playing Spot the Fallacy yesterday —
http://youtu.be/VtAAEJSayMI
Abney Park is right up there with Emilie Autumn on my favorites list, and it’s a short list. (Does he get that some people do not go clubbing because the music alone would drive us to insanity?)
“‘Do you? I’m not the one who keeps making grand sweeping statements without calling them generalizations. (And again, what’s MLTR?)’
I think it’s PUA Speak for Badly Done Poly.”
XD I’m inclined to agree, but I’ll accept ymmv on monogamy. And no, I don’t completely discount the idea that PUAs have rank, I’m discounting that he’s proven it, or that it matters. Ergo the side-bit about the pope and how wtf he says and does actually does not reflect what Catholics in general say and do.
And the Abney Park is not an appeal to force but an appeal to good background music, that might be a fallacy but it’s one I have no shame for committing!
Spot the Fallacy —
We’ve got an appeal to force there, I think.
If he’s saying the fatherlessness causes the crime rate, and not that putting fathers in jail causes fatherlessness, that’s a circular cause and consequence.
Potentially this —
you — “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.”
me — “So are PUAs shittier than average at picking potential girlfriends, or did you just decide that 4 out of 5 guys want to have sex with people they don’t want relationships with? And that somehow PUA is the only solution to that?”
you — Neither, I told you most women are not what these guys are looking for and they dont intend to lack sexlife while searching.
Could be an Argument to Moderation, though I’m not sure it makes sense enough to not just be more peddling of fish.
I’m really tempted to count the ev-psych BS as a Naturalistic Fallacy — claims of what ought to be based on what is.
We’re quickly running out of fallacies that he hasn’t committed, besides the formal ones, but he’d have to have an actual argument first for those. (I’m not bothering with the one’s he just keeps committing over and over again btw, not even I’m that patient!)
@Argenti: th have unique, non-default, avatars, it’s fairly simple really — he’s a mushroom, I’m a ninja.
Bwahahahahahah! I love it.
And I wonder if he even bothers to look at the icons (I know I’ve gotten much more attuned to graphic information since I started hanging out so much on the internet–I tended much more toward text, and still can relapse).
*MEDUSA*
Picked because of her extreme hatred for men and her ability to TURN THEM INTO STONE!
*more evil laughter*
ArtTroll: OK, cannot let this go by though it may be an ESL error; if keeping a woman meant the same thing as keeping seeing her, we would not have the phrase KEPT WOMAN in English (nice to see we also have KEPT MAN though no doubt it’s of more recent coinage):
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS452US452&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22kept+woman%22
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS452US452&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22kept+woman%22#hl=en&rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS452US452&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22kept+man%22&oq=%22kept+man%22&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0l4.15235.15389.0.18155.2.2.0.0.0.1.227.424.0j1j1.2.0…0.0.GoLpPykLo6o&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=db8e722411ee042c&biw=1024&bih=475
Google is your friend. The way you go on, I suspect Google may be your only friend.
Should be ARK Troll. T is for TYPO!
Ithiliana — ooh, your avatar is medusa, I was wondering about that, she almost looks like a Dali painting there. And thanks for those links, since he seems to think I’m just making shit up.
@Argenti: And thanks for those links, since he seems to think I’m just making shit up.
You’re welcome!
And: PROJECTION is clearly his middle name. He makes all his stuff up, so why shouldn’t you.
I only just realized he’s talking about ROBIN TOLMACH LAKOFF, one of the major feminist linguists–turns out some of what she attributed to gender in her earliest work is more related to hierarchy and expertise (i.e. men who are not trained in the legal system will when in a court use some of the same utterances as women). I have read her work, and taught it, and I still didn’t recognize it in his ‘summary’!
Rats. HTML fail. Sorry–first paragraph is a quote from Argenti, the rest is my stuff.
I’ve solved one of his jigsaw puzzle sentences —
“Another stupid label, how about learning which group promoted calling everyone not agreeing labels like “hater”?”
…That sentence is not a sentence, please try again.
He was going for —
Another stupid label, how about learning which group promoted
labels like “hater”
callingfor everyone not agreeingFirst and fucking foremost, you just managed another fallacy! Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[17] — PUAs, as you’ve admitted, use their own lingo for everything, so I’d assume you don’t call your haters “haters” (trust me, we’re hatin’)
Second, etymology! It would appear the source of the word “hater” is late 14 century. So um, no feminism? Idfk who brought it onto the internet (anyone got OED access?)
Did he pull an — Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same — when he got Pecunium and I confused because “we sound so much alike”?
I’m counting his repeated claims about what’s normal as — Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy[58], naturalistic fallacy[59]) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. — but I think it may also be — Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[52] — he keeps claiming that it’s normal for men to want sex with lots more women than they want relationships with, and this is just normal, not objectifying, because feminism made up objectification. That’s like 3 fallacies in one (the third being assuming merely calling something feminist is some kind of insult).
It is too bad that making up facts isn’t a fallacy (seriously, how is argumentum ad bullshit not a fallacy?) — that birth control is so new! one always makes me laugh. The Pill is new, contraceptive pessaries are nearly 4,000 years old. (And once you know crocodile dung was a method of birth control, you’re not likely to forget that)
CROCODILE DUNG?
You’re right, I’m not about to forget that.
Resists googling to see if crocodile dung is in fact all that distinctive……
Ithiliana — I don’t think it’s really a distinctive type of dung, so much as excessively common in ancient Egypt. And yep, the “put WHAT? WHERE?!” factor makes it highly memorable.
Argenti:
“PUAs, as you’ve admitted, use their own lingo for everything, so I’d assume you don’t call your haters “haters” (trust me, we’re hatin’)”
You assume lots of things, thats what happens when theory dictates reality. People stop thinking and starts doing automatic assumptions. Eventually doing such a bad job in the real world that system change is needed. Economics is just the start. The truth is I would not use BS-labels at all. For example, to start calling feminists child murderers cause of their opinion on abortion adds nothing to the discussion. Same as confusing rape with pickup is just a ridiculous attempt to control people.
Funny how I inform you women have free choice while you call things guys do you dont like “rapey” (the most pathetic word I heard this week) Rape to most people have a clear specific meaning and you desperately trying to widen the definition is just manipulative – counting on most people not knowing the difference and the reactions for the original definition.
Same as including abortion in “murder” also is a pathetic widening of definitions.
“Second, etymology! It would appear the source of the word “hater” is late 14 century. So um, no feminism? Idfk who brought it onto the internet (anyone got OED access?)”
Yes the word hater did exist before communists deciding to stop try to argue what is good with communism and instead basing their entire argument on attacking western society. Yes I do know the word existed before this particular use of it. I am arguing against the “USE” not the existance of the word.
“Did he pull an — Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same — when he got Pecunium and I confused because “we sound so much alike”?”
Since I called confusing the two of you a mistake this just takes the cake on bullshit-intepretation. Guilt by association is more you associating things you – for ideological reasons dont like – with rape. And again uber-conservative people doing the exact same thing with murder. THAT´S real guilt by association.
Pecunium:
“If you are being all honest, and not trying to trick her, why do you need a jargon she can’t understand?”
Put in simple terms, cause most women while loving the result of training hate the idea of it being the result of training and do not support guys being bad at it trying to get good at it. If women would have their way “losers” would simply stay “losers”.
“Me, I tend to say, “I’m interested, wanna fool around?”. If it works, we fool around. If it doesn’t, I ask someone else. Lot less stress, lot more success.”
Just telling her you are interested does not make HER interested. Thats the bs people do in Hollywood movies (often ending with a guy she has no reasons to like asking her out and she saying yes, ohhh how romantic). If she says yes to “fooling around”, she already were interested in you and you not asking would make her way happier cause women prefer to be taken. Confusing that with rape would be an obvious proof of insecurity.
“you not asking would make her way happier cause women prefer to be taken. Confusing that with rape would be an obvious proof of insecurity.”
It’s impossible to confuse something that actually is rape with rape, given that they’re the same thing. Your belief that women “prefer to be taken” is a. not true and b. very creepy. You should wear a shirt with the bit I just quoted written on it, just to make sure that any women who’re unfortunate enough to meet you know what they’re dealing with.
*adds Appeal to Spite to the fallacy list* Can we coin a fallacy of “making as much sense as NWO”?
You said — “Another stupid label, how about learning which group promoted calling everyone not agreeing labels like “hater”?”
Once I parsed that sentence I said — “PUAs, as you’ve admitted, use their own lingo for everything, so I’d assume you don’t call your haters “haters” ” — implication in context being “well you must mean feminists then”
You said — “You assume lots of things, thats what happens when theory dictates reality. People stop thinking and starts doing automatic assumptions. Eventually doing such a bad job in the real world that system change is needed. Economics is just the start. The truth is I would not use BS-labels at all. For example, to start calling feminists child murderers cause of their opinion on abortion adds nothing to the discussion. Same as confusing rape with pickup is just a ridiculous attempt to control people.”
What in the everloving fuck is that shit? (This is how you can tell me from Pecunium btw, I swear a lot more)
As for my assumption about PUAs, it was a logic inference from your own statements, considering you went on to say that you do not call your haters “haters” — it was a correct assumption.
Economics? Who brought up economics?!
And I didn’t say PUA was inherently rape, I said certain aspects of it are the same “logic” rapists use. The slang for which is “rapey” — a word I did not coin. (Dude, its in the urban dictionary) Also, I’m not trying to control anyone, I’m trying to say that you do not get to control your partner.
Pecunium — what’s the fallacy of accusing me of what he’s doing? IR pulled this recently too.
“Funny how I inform you women have free choice while you call things guys do you dont like “rapey” (the most pathetic word I heard this week) Rape to most people have a clear specific meaning and you desperately trying to widen the definition is just manipulative – counting on most people not knowing the difference and the reactions for the original definition.”
You keep ignoring legal definitions that prove you wrong. Let’s return to how your sex partner can withdraw consent during the act and if you continue, that’s rape — according to various US states (idk your laws, but point is that this is a legal definition, not something I just pulled out of my ass to taunt you).
As for rape by coercion, third sentence off wiki’s rape page — “The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, or is unconcious or incapacitated.” Following the links to the legal dictionary gets us — “In the early 2000s in many states, the prosecution can prove lack of consent by presenting evidence that the victim objected verbally to the sexual penetration or sexual intrusion.” — if you refuse to listen to anything besides a hard “NO!” then you are pushing the boundaries of this definition.
Does that make PUA inherently rape? No; Does that make “push until you get a hard no” the sort of logic rapists use? Yes, yes it does.
Oh and — Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[21] — on insisting the rape requires force, not since the 70s.
“Same as including abortion in “murder” also is a pathetic widening of definitions.”
Who is talking about abortion? Just how much do you love red herring you peddler of fish? I mean really, you could make meal upon meal of herring at this point.
“Yes the word hater did exist before communists deciding to stop try to argue what is good with communism and instead basing their entire argument on attacking western society. Yes I do know the word existed before this particular use of it. I am arguing against the “USE” not the existance of the word.”
First, communism? Where’d that come from? Have another red herring for your collection. Second, that’s barely comprehensible. Third, you weren’t arguing anything! You had some gibberish half-point about how proto-raptist is an insult like hater, and specifically demanded I learn which group promoted the word, thus I went for the etymology of the word in hopes of finding who promoted it in who coined it (this failed as it was coined centuries ago). Apparently the answer to who promotes it is communists though?
(Is he sounding like a Swedish NWO to anyone else?)
“Since I called confusing the two of you a mistake…”
Yeah that was a question for a reason, though I wasn’t asking you.
“Guilt by association is more you associating things you – for ideological reasons dont like – with rape.”
Oh little peddler of fish, I’m using the legal definition, not ideology, see above.
“And again uber-conservative people doing the exact same thing with murder. THAT´S real guilt by association.”
Is that were the abortion and murder derail comes from? In any case, I’m pretty sure insisting that anyone who says “rape by coercion is rape” is the same as uber-conservations is now guilt by association on your part.
Also, association fallacy =/= guilt by association; guilt by association is a type of association fallacy. The halo effect would be another actually. Honor by association is also an association fallacy, meaning the opposite of guilt by association. In Venn diagram form — Pecunium and I are B and C, while you said we’re both A. I pasted in the full wiki definition, you assumed I meant the specific subtype listed…what was that about assumptions again? (Considering I’ve pasted like 50 of those definitions without editing them, you have no excuse)
“Just telling her you are interested does not make HER interested.”
Really? The pervocracy has written many a post on how hot “I want to kiss you (etc)” is. And/or citation needed.
Cassandra — oh he meant that? I thought for a moment there he meant taken as in FB status = in a relationship.
Dude, that’s seriously rapist logic, please do get that shirt. And just what are you basing your opinions on what women want anyways? It’s being to sound a lot like the answer to that is “crappy porn”.
“Pecunium — what’s the fallacy of accusing me of what he’s doing? IR pulled this recently too.
Not sure what the technical term is, most people just call that “I know you are but what am I”.
The shirt can say “Women Who Don’t Want To Be Taken Are Just Insecure”. It’ll clear a room faster than bad gas.
Oh man, that is just fucking priceless. You spend a week, a godsdamn WEEK puffing out massive, stinking clouds of obfuscation, twisting and torturing logic beyond any and all recognition, and now without a hint of irony you crack out this fucking gem. Unbelievable.
PUA really is like a religion for its followers, isn’t it? Their belief that you can make a woman who’s not interested in sex with you become interested via the use of the correct cheat codes is the PUA answer to the theory of transubstantiation.
Cassandra — his logic being the disaster it is, I’m not sure on this, but I think the “insecure” comment was intended to mean that anyone who thinks women don’t want to be taken must be insecure in their ability to successful take a woman (which is worse really).
Also, I think he called Pecunium insecure…he’s really got to try better on his insults.
As for “I know you are but what am I?” — in IR’s case he was managing to twist himself sideways to accuse me of attempting to gaslight him by implying he must be homophobic like the rest of the MRM, so I wasn’t really sure enough of whether he was trying his hand at gaslighting, or just fucking clueless as usual. With IR maybe school yard taunts are best though, that seems about his level.
“Oh man, that is just fucking priceless….Unbelievable.” — Dracula
“PUA really is like a religion for its followers, isn’t it?” — Cassandra
Yes, to both of those.
No.