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.
They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her.
So you admit you were lying?
Exactly one sentence in that narrative is relevant — “They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her.”
That’s legally rape.
“He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that were actually sugar pills.”
And that’s just disgusting. All that adds to “he not only doesn’t care about his partners health, he is perfectly willing to impregnate them by deception” — if even only that one line is true, no woman anywhere should ever go near him again.
Ah, the old “sleeping women can’t say no” gambit. Yeah, that is totally not rape.
/sarcasm
ArkTroll is a deep mining troll: he just keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper and deeper….go, TROLL!
Oh and my narrative may’ve been off on the details, but the order, the only part I was actually speaking of, was correct. Unlike your claim of —
“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.”
You said he tried raping and then had consensual sex, I corrected that they had consensual sex and then he raped her, to which you nitpicked over who fell asleep first like that has any bearing on anything at all.
Can I interest anyone in some slightly burnt popcorn for this rapetastic derail?
I can’t estimate; it could be soon, but this one is indefatigable and might just blather on forever.
You seemed to have missed this
““Steinem controls exactly one person, herself, anyone is free to ignore her, there’s no feminism cabal that’ll throw people out for not taking her advise”
If you believe this you dont understand how women are controlled”
Isn’t obvious that women are controlled by Gloria Steinem, who is controlled by the CIA, who is controlled , by the Soviet Union, who is controlled by the Bavarian Illuminati.
Us Trolls are controlled by the Servants of Cthulhu.
Pecunium and silver, which group are you controlled by?
And by the way Pecunium, re fatherlessnes a long way back in this thread, unmarried parents is not the same as single parents (many are cohabiting).
talacaris — I’d have said Cthulhu but you beat me to it. So I’ll apparently have to spill the beans and confess that it’s Malkav.
I’m not playing this game, you pedantic, lying asshole. You’re spitting hairs to avoid addressing the actual point. AGAIN.
First, dude, do you realize that your actual literal argument here is “a double negative is TOTALLY different than a positive”? “I’m not saying all rape victims would cancel the party they were supposed to host the next day after being raped! I’m just saying all victims would not NOT cancel the party!” Even for the trolls we get here, that’s pretty damn stupid.
Second, may I ask where you got your advanced degree in psychology and the methodology of the studies you’ve conducted on this subject? Because, see, I’ve talked to actual experts on trauma, and they all agreed that not only is there no one universal response to trauma, but that trying to pretend nothing happened is among the most common and well-documented initial responses. Since you’re presenting a view entirely the opposite of theirs, surely you must have done at least as much research on the subject, which I’m sure you’ll be happy to cite for us. I mean, you’d have to be pretty dumb to try to dispute other people’s lived experiences just by imagining what you think you would do in the same situation and deciding that your imaginary response is more real than their real one!
I’m not saying Aktivarum is an asshole. I’m saying he’s not not an asshole.
I’m kinda torn about this here troll, I gotta tell ya. On the one hand, I’d dearly love for him to shut the fuck up.
On the other, the fool damns himself further with every post. He’s misogynistic rape apologist gift that keeps on giving. You couldn’t make up a more perfect illustration of the inherent dishonesty of his ilk.
*He’s the
Polliwog:
“First, dude, do you realize that your actual literal argument here is “a double negative is TOTALLY different than a positive”?”
Do I realise saying everyone does the same thing is different from saying nobody does that thing?
“Because, see, I’ve talked to actual experts on trauma, and they all agreed that not only is there no one universal response to trauma, but that trying to pretend nothing happened is among the most common and well-documented initial responses.”
Thus we can assume every human on earth is in trauma cause nothing you just said means experts can spot the difference. Great stuff and another good example of the art of complaining to everything people say and saying nothing yourself. The problem with your argument being after talking to experts you dont have a clue if she was in trauma or not. You wanna assume she was based on not knowing.
Nobody who is not an asshole talks like you, Aktroll.
But you are the one claiming that since she went to work, and hosted her party, that she was a)not traumatized and therefore b) not raped. a. is not necessarily true as people respond to trauma differently, including by internalising or repressing. b. is not necessarily true because rape is not contingent on her being traumatized. If I beat someone within an inch of his life, and after he gets out of the hospital we go out and have beers, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t commit assault. What determines that is whether or not the incident was legally consentual, with the understanding that it could lead to that level of injury.
ArkTroll: The Energizer Bunny of TROLLS!
*peeks back into thread and wonders at amazing troll stopping properties of BUNNEHS!*
“Do I realise saying everyone does the same thing is different from saying nobody does that thing?”
Nobody = 0 people = literally no one, anywhere, ever, “does that thing” — most people don’t jump out of perfectly good airplanes, some people enjoy skydiving; the vast majority of people do not amputate their owns limbs, a handful of people have (to survive, eg trapped while hiking, etc)
If we can come up with one example of someone who was raped and went to work the next day, you’re argument is invalid. So all those military rape cases that only got reported when state side again? Your argument is disproven.
“Thus we can assume every human on earth is in trauma cause nothing you just said means experts can spot the difference.”
Wrong again! Thus we can assume any human who experienced a traumatic event recently may go on to show a trauma response regardless whether they are yet or not. No trauma response within the first month is ever PTSD btw, it’s called an acute stress reaction at that point. Note the example wiki uses — “After being attacked and stabbed, Austrian empress Elisabeth of Bavaria boarded a ship, unaware of the severity of her condition as a consequence of an acute stress reaction. Bleeding to death from a puncture wound to the heart, Elisabeth’s last words were, ‘What happened to me?'”
So since she boarded the ship she must not have been stabbed?
“Great stuff and another good example of the art of complaining to everything people say and saying nothing yourself.”
That you spew bullshit at astonishing rates doesn’t somehow make you better than those of us citing our claims. You fail logic, psych, and probably college level courses in general (no, not even studio arts wants you to just totally make shit up, you can’t throw color theory out the window until you can do it well).
“The problem with your argument being after talking to experts you dont have a clue if she was in trauma or not.”
This is true for the first day or two after, yes. Not even experts can tell if reported trauma will result in a trauma response, unless it already has, but it may not have, so wait and see. There’s research suggesting that various methods of altering memory encoding in that period may prevent trauma responses and PTSD later, hilariously, “play tetris” is one of them (I’ll dig that study up in a moment, since I’m sure I just piqued curiosity from the non-trolls).
“You wanna assume she was based on not knowing.”
Yeah that’s what psych does in the first ~48 hours — assume a trauma reaction may occur and treat accordingly, because shock is a common reaction at that point. And I’m not just talking rape here, see the stabbing example above, or review the stories of any of the hikers who’ve amputated their own limbs (try Aron Ralston for a recent example). Hell, or study the Donner Party, you can find example after example of “they’re dead, deal with it!”.
Also, what shadow said — one can experience a traumatic event and not be traumatized by it, that’s more common in natural disasters than human caused trauma, but it isn’t rare (or New Orleans would be empty).
Oh, you can also try the Titanic btw, and all the people who calmly waited for news of the loved ones they’d left on the boat — took days for the reality of the tragedy to set in.
Okay, just a few things.
One, Argenti has you so dead to rights on your prevarication and games-playing regarding trauma. You just look ridiculous.
In fact… every time you open your mouth and force Argenti to rebut you look more and more ridiculous. I’m way out of teaspoons to engage with you, Ark-troll, but you look so ridiculous that, frankly, you are discrediting your cause. Extremely.
And your cause had no credit to begin with.
@Shadow:
Not necessarily true. Many jurisdictions hold that even if you consented, some acts of assault are things you can’t consent to, that it remains criminal even in the presence of assault.
This leads to situations where a lot of BDSM play is technically illegal at the time it is occurring. (I can scare some links up on that if necessary)
…note that the untrue part is not the part where Akky-troll was totally wrong, please! (I know Ak is just dying to jump out and ‘A-ha!’ here and claim this vindicates him, when it just makes him even more wrong–Shadow’s overall point stands up very well)
Howard —
re: BDSM // consent — you’re correct on that one, and whether one could ever consent or not doesn’t have bearing on how terribly wrong the troll is, considering the seemingly higher than average rate of kinky people around here, it may be an important note all the same. And it isn’t just the sort of BDSM that could be seen as assault, obscenity clauses still make photos of bondage illegal in places. CT’s obscenity law includes this ass definition —
“(7) “Sado-masochistic abuse” means flagellation or torture by or upon a person clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed.”
Sending pictures of a bound person (in “bizarre costume”) is illegal even if all parties involved consent, something I end up reminded my CT FWB of all the fucking time.
That note has nothing to do with the troll and is more a pet peeve // the more you know (the less likely you are to get arrested). And no, they don’t define “bizarre costume” (of course not).
Re: tetris study — there’s a decent summary in Huffington Post and the full text is behind a paywall at Science Direct.