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.
Maybe it would go away if it weren’t fed.
Also, nicely done there Howard, it would appear it is his blog.
Fyi, there’s a reason courts use more than just the police report, police reports tend to suck. I used to work for a lawyer, I’ve seen more than my fair share of “what do you mean it’s not in the police report?!” (and I’m talking “wtf do you mean they didn’t get the accused’s name?!” level bad, ah civil court, how I loathe thee)
Argenti:
Here is a fun fact for you. You agree with the claim AA was raped by Julian Assange the 13th of August (The night before the shrimp party) right? Thats the date of the rape?
First she is claimed to have been pinned and raped by him, 13th of august
Then she comes to work the day after for the LO-borgen seminar? 14th of august
The same night she host a party in his honor. During the party she tweets:
And then the 16th of august she has phone contact with Donald Boström, a journalist working with Assange who also was at the shrimp party. This is what he says about this contact with AA.
hellkell — but he’s wrong! The ev-psych proves PUA “works” bits are hilarious, and I’m enjoying playing Spot That Fallacy! — not many of our trolls manage to get their own virtual game show XD
“Here is a fun fact for you. You agree with the claim AA was raped by Julian Assange the 13th of August (The night before the shrimp party) right? Thats the date of the rape?”
Arg, you really cannot read can you? I said, twice now —
“Copied from The Guardian — so which woman was it where the only issue is that he didn’t use a condom? The one he’s accused of pinning, or the one who was asleep? Which of those is not rape?”
“Charges one and four are unarguably rape if true, so are you defending pinning your partner? Or maybe having sex (raping) sleeping people?”
So let’s fix your continued misrepresentation of my thoughts on this derail — “You agree with the claim AA alleges she was raped by Julian Assange the 13th of August (The night before the shrimp party) right? Thats the date of the alleged rape?”
Really now, is this whole thing hard? Does Sweden not have “innocent until proven guilty” or something?
I’m sure Boström’s testimony will be quite interesting in court, a court we are not currently in (nor will we ever be, me because I’m not a Swedish citizen and I hope Swedish law means you won’t either as you clearly have already decided the case). Also, this has fuck all to do with the claim that the case is all about a broken condom.
You going to dig up statistics saying men experience reproductive coercion remotely regularly? My set took 5 min of googling to find. Or statistics on any of the rest of your claims, including, but not limited to — “women prefer to be ‘taken'”.
(lol “‘”.” take *that* WP php!!)
Incidentally, I think his core conspiracy theory is probably correct.
Not the feminists controlling the courts. That’s… well, yeah.
I think the CIA has it in for Julian Assange, and that these charges would have simply gone away otherwise.
That’s a conspiracy theory. A theory based on a shadowy gov’t group controlling things they shouldn’t be able to. Yep. And I think it’s true.
However, (remember that fallacy I mentioned earlier) that doesn’t mean Assange isn’t guilty. Certainly his behavior and his defences have raised my suspicions. But I know that the US government has very specific grievances against Wikileaks, and that they’re not above using something like this in a political way.
Even if that’s true–that’s no excuse for engaging in rape apologia. Period.
This one is primed to explode. I’d make popcorn, but I sense it’s going to be a particularly rapey explosion.
@Hellkell and Argenti: One of the things it took me a while to realize is that a significant number of people here LIKE playing whack a troll (and after that, I got really into it myself–it can be very fun at times–not always, and there can be enraging things, and triggering things, and bullshit things). BUt yeah, I’d say Argenti and Pecunium are having fun.
And it’s interesting to see how long ArkTroll will go to try to get the last word (*snickersnort*).
I mean, he’s now claiming that there’s only one way “true rape victims” would behave despite the fact that there can be a whole range of behaviours.
I doubt they’ll let him get away with it.
And I’m about ready to start making book on how long ArkTroll will keep trudging back and blathering on even though he is convincing nobody, and he is not allowed the last word, and his fallacies are being documented, and his WRONGNESS shown for the enjoyment of the lurkers.
Over and over and over and over again.
Argenti:
“Fyi, there’s a reason courts use more than just the police report, police reports tend to suck. I used to work for a lawyer”
Fyi I have the same material the lawyers would have. The material leaked was the 100-page transfer from Swedish defense Björn Hurtig to UK Defense Mark Stephens and co-counsel Jennifer Robinson.
@Argenti: I think the CIA has it in for Julian Assange, and that these charges would have simply gone away otherwise.
I tend to agree with you–rape charges against powerful men who support the status quo tend to disappear fairly rapidly, or are squashed before they’re even made.
But Assange was tweaking the US’s proboscis.
And that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit the acts he did, so yep, I agree.
I think the CIA has it in for Julian Assange, and that these charges would have simply gone away otherwise.
Quite possibly, but in the sense that a tiny fraction of rapes get a conviction, and Assange’s high profile bumped him into that tiny percent (which is what you meant anyway, yes?)
katz // Howard — I sort of agree with the CIA theory (and certainly that that has no bearing on his actual guilt) — the point is that the US really hates wikileaks (see Manning’s case). That the CIA thought the whole “chop off the head of a snake and the body dies” thing would work wouldn’t surprise me.
Aktivarum — the exact transcripts of every deposition in there? If not then you do not have 100% of what the lawyers have. Do try to keep your terms straight, as you’d just said — “I use the police original document from Klara police station in Stockholm.” — which does not mean the same thing as “I have the same material the lawyers would have” — as, at least in the US, the prosecution/state has to turn over everything, while the defense has no such duty. So even if you have 100% what the state has, you very doubtfully have 100% what the defense has (because leaking their entire defense would ruin their case).
Now, let me finish my ice cream, and then I’ll tear that victim blaming shit apart.
Ithiliana:
“I mean, he’s now claiming that there’s only one way “true rape victims” would behave despite the fact that there can be a whole range of behaviours.”
Not at all true, it could possibly be argued I am claiming there is one way true rape victims would NOT behave though.
More in the sense of the previous. People with loads of privilege tend to be more immune to rape accusations, not less.
Yes.
But there’s something particularly CRASS and VILE about using a cases like this to further a political agenda.
Allow me at this time to offer the fondest of platonic affections for your next round of ‘whack-a-troll,’ in advance.
Which is basically an entirely bullshit distinction without a difference that only speaks further to your ignorance and dishonesty. Nice try though. (Not really.)
it could possibly be argued I am claiming
Way to stand by your words, dude.
And this guy wants to call other people insecure? HA!
Too… much… text… I want to see where he claims that there is a way that “true” rape victims (women only?) would not behave, but I can’t scroll through the wall o’ text.
katz, any predictions as to when this one will melt down, if ever?
“‘“Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her.’
She “went along” with it and “allowed” him to…. but she “wanted” not to. I guess she failed saying what she wanted and he failed mind-reading”
First, here’s the full paragraph that quote is from — “Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she “tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again”. Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her.”
So no, not “she failed saying what she wanted” more like “she didn’t fight back hard enough” — which is neither required by law, nor by decent people. Demanding a level of fighting back beyond trying to put on clothes and having “[him] rip them off again” is rape apologia. Also, quoting out of context like that? Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.[27]
Re: the shrimp party that she was hosting — she was the host, only someone making excuses for rape would find it odd that she didn’t make a (big enough?) fuss. Plenty of rape victims do not report their assault within the <24 hours she had to decide whether to cancel the party and have to explain to a bunch of mutual friends what happened.
Re: “coolest smartest people” — there were other guests at this party yes? So she might not have been including him? Whether she still finds other friends cool and smart has absolutely no bearing on whether she was raped.
“Also the part of AA at this party telling her friends Assange wasnt good in bed and offered him to her friend (police record). He is supposed to have raped her, yet she said he was bad in bed and offered him to her friend (risking her friend to be raped) How sisterhood of her!”
Weren’t you complaining a few days ago about how terrible women are and how they need to be isolated from their friends to prevent them “cock blocking”? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
“And very realistic.”
“This not proven and also ripping a condom even if proven would not be rape. It would be more like lying about being on the pill. Should women lying about the pill be put in jail?”
This continues to be a red herring as neither case is only about a broken condom, one is alleged to involve force, the other alleges she wasn’t even awake! In no world, except that of a rape apologist, is having sex with a sleeping person, while using birth control, not rape. The birth control and condom question? More red herrings, you hilarious peddler of fish.
“‘“Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when “he agreed unwillingly to use a condom”.’
He tried raping her? Failed, and then although he tried raping her she went into the same bed. Also this is the second woman SW and they had consensual sex “at least” once. Meaning several times later during the night.”
*bangs head against wall hoping to get as dumb as this troll* Let’s put this on a made up timeline to make it clear (all times pulled out of my ass since you cannot understand chronology) — they go to bed, say at midnight, he wants sex without a condom, she says no, he agrees with her no, they fall asleep; at least once during the night, say 3 am, they wake up, have sex that they both agree to, with a condom; at some point thereafter she wakes up to him having sex (raping) her without a condom. This is what she is alleging, not that made up to suit you order you claim.
And even if she were saying he raped her and then they had consensual sex? That wouldn’t prove it wasn’t rape, and if she consented later out of fear he’d rape her again? That’d make all the sex in question rape. But since he controlled himself until morning, only the one act is relevant to the charges.
If I keep replying to every one of your completely fallacious arguments one by one, we’ll all be here all day. Since none of us want that, I’m going to pick out some of the most absurd ones.
“According to testimony from a friend SW was half-asleep when he started having sex with her. This is on police record her friend telling police what SW said.”
Half-asleep =/= awake enough to consent. Not consenting = not consenting.
“Second woman “letting” him. We start to see a pattern here.”
Yeah that you repeatedly have seen wearing her down with coercive tactics to be just a’ok. It’s why we’ve been calling PUA rapey from the first day of this inanity.
“Both women had the opportunity to say no and choose not to (both presenting reasons for not doing it)”
FFS both of their reasons for “not saying no” where they’d already said it, or physically tried enforcing it, repeatedly. To steal a line from Cliff Pervocracy, does she needs a marching band playing “I do not want sex”?
“Not unless she was unconcious or was not allowed to end it when no longer wanting it. Then it would be rape.”
Neither of them wanted it in the first place. The first says she tried dressing and he pinned her, whether she could’ve maybe fought him off is entirely irrelevant — the second had made it clear, repeatedly, he did not have her consent without a condom, and also, she wasn’t awake enough to give consent (certainly not the “implied consent” you’re claiming).
As to whether she could’ve fought him off, freezing and/or dissociating, is a goddamned common reaction to being assaulted, of any sort, but particularly sexual assault.
“I have never said Assange was a great guy doing nothing wrong. The case is about defining rape in ways that can be proven. Which actually helps real rape victims cause police do not have infinite resources and most cases doesnt even reach the courts.”
And now you try backpedaling into plausible deniablity land? Yeah we get a lot of that around here, it won’t work. You’re initial point was that it’s “all about a broken condom” which has now been proven false so many times over that you have no choice but to resort to “I’m just playing devil’s advocate”. You claim to want to help rape victims while flat out repeating many of the tropes used to blame rape victims and revictimize them. You are helping no one but yourself, rape apologists, and rapists.
A peddler of fish is the least insulting name I have for you at the moment, you disingenuous, falliacious, derailing, peddler of fish.
Dracula:
“Which is basically an entirely bullshit distinction without a difference that only speaks further to your ignorance and dishonesty. Nice try though. (Not really.)”
There is a huge difference between saying people act only ONE way and saying people can act several ways except ONE.
Saying how people are likely to act and saying how people are not likely not act – not the same thing.
“Not at all true, it could possibly be argued I am claiming there is one way true rape victims would NOT behave though.”
Oh and which of your multiple claims would that be?
“But there’s something particularly CRASS and VILE about using a cases like this to further a political agenda.”
Agreed, it only increases the chances he’ll walk even if he’s completely guilty as charged. (And the whole “get wikileaks!” theory sure didn’t work any if that’s true)
No.
You’re auditing the reaction of a victim, and saying ‘if she didn’t act X upset, it wasn’t real.’
Wrong.
False.
Untrue.
Argenti:
“Let’s put this on a made up timeline to make it clear”
You got the “made up” part right. Not only is the timeline made up however, the entire description you give is based on crap sources guessing what is in the police inquiry.
“(all times pulled out of my ass since you cannot understand chronology) — they go to bed, say at midnight, he wants sex without a condom, she says no, he agrees with her no, they fall asleep”
No they dont! There is a long intimate naked foreplay, he then loses interest and goes to sleep. She now feels rejected and confused for him not wanting to continue. She sits up SMS:ing friends trying to understand what went wrong while he lies snoring
“at least once during the night, say 3 am, they wake up, have sex that they both agree to, with a condom”
“at some point thereafter she wakes up to him having sex (raping) her without a condom. This is what she is alleging, not that made up to suit you order you claim.”
She went shopping, they then ate breakfast
And finally