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.
I’ve been getting a better idea of Aktivarum’s ideas of how sex works.
First, women don’t know what they want.
We have the following “facts”.
Women “like to be taken”.
Women are disappointed when a man checks for interest on the part of a woman.
A man checking for interest actually decreases her interest, and makes the sex less pleasurable.
Women say they aren’t interested, even when they are.
Men should ignore, “minor” signs of disinterest/resistance to sex, because this is what women want them to do.
It’s a recipe for sex without actual consent (on the theory that women don’t actually know what they want, and men do know what women want).
And sex without consent is rape, which means Aktivarum is not only willing to rape, he recommends that other men rape.
Pecunium — that seems about right. And I was back in this thread for another appeal to good background music —
http://youtu.be/RLokoA915fg
And if the trolls are still annoying, we could always throw them overboard
http://youtu.be/TT0tLBTTD48
I appear to be having a pun-y day 🙂
Aktivarum: Which Assange disputes being the important part. But hey! Who listens to a “rapist”, never mind no rape proven yet. Treat his words as unimportant and her as undeniable.
Nope. Nice piece of fish.
Treat it as an account in dispute. I am sure you take the denials of everyone accused of a crime as the more likely version to be true.
Since when is “mostly” and “all sex” even remotely compatible statements? I do not care about all sex, I talk about what is generally true.
What you talk about is, “The World According to the Fantasies of Aktivarum”. Feel free to provide links to studies which support these views, or admit that you are making shit up.
There is a huge difference between saying people act only ONE way and saying people can act several ways except ONE.
No, they are exactly the same. You are saying all people will not do that one thing, ergo everyone who doesn’t do that thing is not a member of group A, which means you are saying all people will act a certain way.
Are you so stupid as to think (contra all evidence) that we are so stupid as to fall for this?
@Argenti:
Yes–in fact, when I realized that maybe somebody would think I was defending Aktivarum from Shadow’s pertinent comments I panicked and zipped out a hasty disclaimer.
But just to make sure the logic path is clear:
AKKY: you have to act like a victim to be counted a victim in the eyes of the law!
No. In fact, in the eyes of the law, maybe you don’t even have to be a victim. Maybe you did consent to something–but if the law says that’s not enough, then even consent doesn’t help.
Which… isn’t really right. Consent ought to be more important to the equation than it is. We’ll work on that.
Not Akky. He doesn’t care about that part.
@Howard Bannister
Yeah, I had it as “consentual” first, but then i changed it to “legally consentual” for the simple reason that I’ve been in Canada for over 10 yrs now, and I still don’t understand what constitutes assault lolll. But that consentual BDSM play can be considered assault is even whackier than I was expecting!! Do you know if that’s only in the US, or is it common to North America?
@Argenti
I appear to be having a pun-y day
Well, if it eats all its vegetables, it’ll grow up to be a biiiig day!!
BLOOOCKQUOOOTEESS!!
@Shadow
It’s not even the same in all US jurisdictions. My international knowledge is low… as a general rule, if you’re into that, check out your local laws. Quietly.
Shadow — I’m not finding anything on Canada right off, I’ll keep looking, but if you fall under UK law, then yeah it’s similar. Try the wiki pages on legal consent and the questionable NSFW one on consent in BDSM. (Top picture there is a bound, but covered, woman)
I can’t find anything really on Canada, wiki’s BDSM and the law page has some, but not much. (Again, questioning SFW, top pic is the back and bound hands of someone in a tutu.)
Aktivarum — that first link, scroll down to the section on STDs — this is why condom =/= birth control pill. It isn’t about the potential for pregnancy, no matter how much “joking” about pregnancy may have occurred. It’s a legal standard that existed before Assange refused to use a rubber.
“if you’re into that, check out your local laws. Quietly.”
That. Emphasis on the “quietly” part, google is your friend.
Argenti:
“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?’””
Empress Elisabeth seem to not even have been aware of having been attacked. The weapon being concealed and very thin, the attack hidden as a man stumbling and pushing her with his hand, adrenalin concealing her pain and finally most important her tight corsette making the bleeding from the heart very very slow this the reason she could walk 92 m before death.
When younger I had an accident and I know perfectly well what its like to have serious bleeding, feeling hardly any pain and being able to walk from the place of accident to someplace else to lie down and call for help. I was not stressed at all although serious bleeding. Its hard to be stressed when not knowing anything.
Did he just…are you seriously…excuse me while I go put on a corset, maybe it’ll restrict blood flow to my brain enough to manage to see things from your stupid perspective.
First, that whole corsets mean you can’t breathe thing? It’s known bullshit. It’s a quaint excuse for fainting couches because the truth is they existed for um (the delicate should stop reading now) they existed for the relief of “hysteria”, ie manual sex performed by a doctor, or housemaid. The whole fainting part is just to preserve delicate sensibilities (and the dignity of the women who owned said furniture). Did you think I just magically learned about Victorian England on the spot to taunt you? Corsets, they really don’t work like that.
Second, holy shit. I bounced off a cliff face once while rappelling, no clue I was bleeding until I got to the bottom and got asked if I knew my elbows were a bloody mess. You knew you’d had an accident, I knew I went elbow first into the cliff face, she knew (at the least) that she’d been hit in the chest. That the severity of her condition was not readily apparent, despite her inability to walk on her own was very likely from the stress of being assassinated.
Do try disproving that the Donner party or Titanic survivors showed amazing calmness.
And really, it isn’t hard to breathe in a corset, heat stroke is a bigger risk. Also, you clearly read the wiki on her, not just the acute stress reaction page, and yet missed that her actual last words are reported as — “What has happened?”
Oh and btw? You just disagreed with your last opinion — that no one could ever behave normally after a traumatic event, disproven with your own story even. Please pick a position and stick with it.
Shorter version re: corsets — the corset didn’t help her any, the part where it was a teeny tiny wound did.
And most of the effect comes from widening the hips to shrink the waist by comparison, assuming it’s less than 70f / ~21c they’re actually pretty comfortable (can’t slouch, so your back will appreciate it).
“Empress Elisabeth seem to not even have been aware of having been attacked. The weapon being concealed and very thin, the attack hidden as a man stumbling and pushing her with his hand, adrenalin concealing her pain and finally most important her tight corsette making the bleeding from the heart very very slow this the reason she could walk 92 m before death.”
You can’t even get your theory on the Empress straight — did she not know she was attacked, or did adrenalin conceal the pain? Having a man stumble into you isn’t usually nearly enough to cause pain concealing adrenalin. (um, duh?)
Considering she was only able to board the boat by walking with support, going to guess she knew she was attacked, just didn’t realize how severe her wound was.
And even tight lacing corsets don’t restrict blood flow FFS. And just for extra lulz, she’s reported to have stopped tight lacging before 1862 (2+ decades before her death) — “Although on her return to Vienna in August 1862, a lady-in-waiting reported that “she eats properly, sleeps well, and does not tight-lace anymore””
@Howard & Argenti
Cheers. It’s just idle curiousity on my part, but I appreciate the advice and the links
Akky–I’m going to say some things that seem mean here. But I want you to know that this is an extension of your argument, and that I don’t really think nor endorse any of this, because it’s mean and cold-hearted and bastardly. Okay?
Well, hell, you couldn’t have been hurt that bad! You walked someplace else–and you just said you weren’t stressed! I guess it couldn’t have been serious bleeding at all if you weren’t stressed. Obviously you made the story up after the fact to get somebody else in trouble.
Was that hurtful, Aktivarum? When I audited your response?
I can go on for another twenty pages like that if you don’t get the point.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that’s the most unintentionally hilarious thing I’ve read today.
Arky’s stress level must be really low.
NWO must be the least stressed person on the planet.
@hellkell and katz
I can’t believe I didn’t notice that. That’s… sublime.
Single data point (i.e. anecdote).
For some reason, and I don’t know why, my response when something bad happens is to go into a very calm, quiet, place where my focus is entirely on “what can I do to fix this.”
Now, I’ve never had a major injury, or been the subject of violent assault, so I don’t know what my response would be.
Different people react differently to stress, trauma, etc.
Alternately, in response to minor irritations, I tend to yell “fuck” a lot!
Pecunium:
“Treat it as an account in dispute. I am sure you take the denials of everyone accused of a crime as the more likely version to be true.”
Thats called “innocent until proven guilty” thus… yes we do assume people to likely be innocent unless proven otherwise. There are specific political reasons for this having to do with convicting the innocent being way worse than guilty people not being punished.
“What you talk about is “The World According to the Fantasies of Aktivarum”
What you talk about is the world according to victim studies based on psychoanalysis in the 70s. That method has been debunked due to studies saying whatever shit the psychoanalytic people wanted em to say.
“Feel free to provide links to studies which support these views, or admit that you are making shit up.”
You must be kidding. I am the only person in the room who have even linked to a study here. Most people here do nothing but criticism and hide their own ideas.
“No, they are exactly the same. You are saying all people will not do that one thing, ergo everyone who doesn’t do that thing is not a member of group A, which means you are saying all people will act a certain way.”
Again, I talk about what is generally true and what is likely to be true. You use minorities as the most important factor. Thats the difference!
“Are you so stupid as to think (contra all evidence) that we are so stupid as to fall for this?”
Check your own presented evidence. You ask other people for studies while presenting links to none. Start producing own view instead of basing your status at attacking others.
ithiliana — I do the same. I hit myself with the hammer putting ikea shit together (note, if ikea says to use a hammer, use massive caution) — never been sure if I chipped the bone or not, took long enough to heal that I assume I did. I had guests over when I did it, put down the hammer and walked calmly to the cold water faucet without a sound, took them a good 5 min to realize I’d just hammered my hand.
It’s a survival mechanism I think, some sort of “can’t freak out yet” thing. See, if ev-psych studied how screaming at the saber tooth tiger got you eaten, it’d be less nonsense.
Not that my hammer story really compares, but even I was amazed I didn’t even yelp when I did it (and yes, I am the sort to not bother getting minor broken bones set, walked around on a broken toe once…I don’t really recommend this)
Seriously though, ikea directions have a hammer? Use caution.
“What you talk about is the world according to victim studies based on psychoanalysis in the 70s. That method has been debunked due to studies saying whatever shit the psychoanalytic people wanted em to say. ”
Huh what? No, seriously, WHAT? Because that psych degree? Yeah I learned about 5 min about the history of psychoanalysis, it hasn’t been popular since more like the 50s…Wtf is that even supposed to mean?
“You must be kidding. I am the only person in the room who have even linked to a study here. Most people here do nothing but criticism and hide their own ideas.”
Oh that’s fucking bullshit and you know it, do expect I’ll be quoting myself in a moment here.
“Again, I talk about what is generally true and what is likely to be true. You use minorities as the most important factor. Thats the difference!”
Minorities? For the sake of making sense of your gibberish, I’ll assume you mean that Pecunium’s “group A” is a smaller percentage of this imaginary population than “group B” — you said only group B exists, that group A has no members (see where you said that no one would act a certain way). Ergo a single member of group A disproves your theory.
We’re into formal logic now, and you are badly out logic-ed.
“Check your own presented evidence. You ask other people for studies while presenting links to none. Start producing own view instead of basing your status at attacking others.”
Spot That Fallacy!!
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
Howard:
“Well, hell, you couldn’t have been hurt that bad! You walked someplace else–and you just said you weren’t stressed!”
Yes thats true, I did not know how bad I was injured cause it was in a place not visible to me. Thus the only thing telling me I had a need to be stressed was touching the injury and seeing blood on my hands. I felt absolutely no pain cause of the adrenaline.
“I guess it couldn’t have been serious bleeding at all if you weren’t stressed. Obviously you made the story up after the fact to get somebody else in trouble.”
I couldnt care less about you guessing/interpreting things instead of using the information given. Its the kind of psychoanalysis Paul Ricour called the “hermeneutics of suspicion” always pretending something need to be revealed in the text.
No chance of the rape apologist recognizing the irony here?
I seriously think this one will never flounce or melt down. He will just be boring and rapey forever.
Katz, I sort of wonder if he is a computer algorithm.
Hey, Julian Assange just requested asylum in Ecuador! Wasn’t this
trollcomputer algorithm claiming up-thread that he was full of special insider knowledge about the case?