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.
Aktivarum: Yes people can think whatever they want. That was the point with me saying we do not have “thought crime”. You can think whatever you want. You are just not allowed acting upon whatever you think
Now you are lying about what you said. You’ve been telling us we can’t say/think anyone is guilty until they are convicted, and that an acquittal = innocence, and that anyone who says otherwise is wrong, morally, and legally.
Which you do again in your very next, “argument” about Nancy Grace.
Yes, I did. Good luck attacking me on this one. I noticed the absense of commentary though.
More lies, unless you mean that you noticed that you didn’t respond to the commentary you got in response to the mistakes you made about it.
I said it requires being forced, I did not say it requires use of physical force.
And every form of force which isn’t physical you say isn’t real force*. You say that when a person manages to force someone, through means other than the physical, it shows the victim actually consented.
Call that a misreprentation of fact, not quite a lie, no matter that it’s practical effect is worse than an outright lie.
*I am being generous there, because the, “force doesn’t equal force” nonsense you were spouting was stupid beyond words. Either you don’t know how language works, or thought that pseudo-philosophical lexical gibberish would bedazzle us, and keep us from seeing that you were saying forcing someone to have sex wasn’t really forcing them to have sex.
@ArkTroll: You can bloviate until the cows come home.
You can rant until your face turns blue.
You can carry on for two more fucking years, posting screeds every day and twice on Sunday.
You can dance around words and differences between national laws and semantic shittery until the universe collapses into a black hole.
And NOTHING you say will convince me you are not a rape apologist, a proto-rapist, and likely to have committed or will commit rape.
Period.
(p.s. raspberry_beret is my wordpress blog–amazing how you finally replied to that comment, when you ignored everything else I said).
…
Fuck you, Aktivarum.
Anyone who thinks there was a “lack of any system” in pre-colonial Africa is racist and ignorant, so we can add that to his rape-apologism as further testament to the terrible character of this long-winded troll. Less murder? Oh yeah, King Leopold was such a benevolent bringer of civilization to the those uncivilized people…
/extreme sarcasm
“You mean how they allegedly responded to an alleged rape? You dont know if the response is true. Also you dont even know what they responded to. They control the story completely and you just have to go on whatever they tell you, specially if its in accordance with already held views.”
That last sentence applies to you as well — you don’t believe a rape occurred unless someone is found guilty, ergo I can only assume that even if you knew the person who said it was rape, you’d claim “well I only have your story to go on”. Which is yet more rape apologia.
And I know enough people who have been raped, and enough newspaper articles quoting the police and DAs directly, to have no reason to doubt their stories — eg the idiot cop who said that quote that started the slutwalks.
Thus it’s perfectly believable a cop would ask what she was wearing. And I gave links to so fucking many because even if some of them are lying, statistically it is incredibly doubtful they all are.
“Yes it makes perfect sense in case what you call “rape” is not even a crime. Its instead whatever gives the person the impression they were raped – Doing that is not even automatically illegal but calling it rape makes perfect sense in a propaganda sort of way, where most people assume when you say rape you mean the crime-kind rape, not the other kind.”
And more rape apologia! Sweden, I assume, has one set of laws for the entire country? The US has state by state laws, meaning what’s rape in one state may not be in another –it’s still rape though. This isn’t some propaganda trick but an attempt to reconcile the differences in the laws. Eg, those CT laws I quoted? One state over in Massachusetts state rape is a strict over 18 with under 18 thing, meaning if you turn 18 a mere week before your partner, it would be legally rape to have sex during that week — attempting to reconcile the differences in law is required to have any coherency to what is being discussed.
Oh and not having consent? Unethical regardless what the laws of your state/country may say — what constitutes consent may vary between cultures, but given what’s been said of the Assange case, your culture has similar enough views on consent for me to say — you, personally, need some clue she’s consenting to be acting ethically when you have sex. And the easiest way to be sure you have consent? Ask. (You do get that something like “oh baby I want to fuck you so hard” would be asking right? This doesn’t need to be some boner killing “now, before we proceed, are we legally clear you’re consenting?”)
“after I survived physical rape at the hands of a criminal, I survived psychic rape, if you’ll pardon the phrase, at the hands of the people I had trusted implicitly to protect and help me.”
You missed the important clause there.
“Prior research suggests that rape survivors may experience victim-blaming treatment from system personnel (termed secondary victimization or the second rape).”
How does “secondary victimization” have nothing to do with the definition of victimization?! Would you like a definition of secondary to round it out, or can you work that one out on your own? I’d imagine you know the meaning of secondary already.
“You tear apart bad studies yet give Project Unbreakable (unreliable and unrepresentative material) status as proper knowledge?”
I tear apart bad studies because they attempt to be The Ultimate Truth (and yours didn’t even say what you claimed they did, the second one was a solid study, just not saying anything like what you claimed) — I presented Project Unbreakable as representative of how rape actually looks to the victims. I made no attempt to say what percent of rapes look like which Project Unbreakable statements (that would be an Ultimate Truth claim).
I can’t imagine you need studies on every sports game to form opinions, watching a few dozen soccer (football) games would give you a good representation of how the game works. (That’s an example of a similar thing, a note I make since you’ve had serious issues with previous examples.)
“You are assuming things, I actually have real rape victims in my family and know way more about the suject than I care to discuss with people at a public forum.”
And you believe their stories because their reliable reporters on other matters? But somehow their rapes were the statistically less likely stranger attacks? That’s possible, of course, but statistically it’s more likely that victims, plural, means at least one was either assaulted by a boyfriend/husband/etc, or drugged/drunk at the time. If the only thing that makes their stories more believable is that you already know them, that’s still rape apologia — it means you’d pull this “we have only your word” on similar stories from people you aren’t related to, and that’s inconsistent, at best.
“You dont even know which persons are real rape victims. You just use the word “rape” as a metaphor for a woman feeling raped, and second raped. The purpose of Project Unbreakable is to be able to claim rape WITHOUT having to first prove it happened at all. It doesnt matter the slightest to you whether a claimed rape is a real rape cause its more convienent to call ALL claimed rapes real rapes. In that case it makes perfect sense.”
..that’s not what the word metaphor means, should I get out the dictionary again? Considering everything else you’ve said, I suspect the only thing that would prove a rape occurred would be a court conviction. Maybe Sweden has a better conviction rate, but the US’s sucks — we’ve had newspaper verified reports of women told they’re making it up, only to later find pictures of them in a serial rapist’s photo collection. So no, I don’t trust our cops to pursue rape cases, and if they won’t even take a report, then using a conviction to call it a “proven rape” (and only the conviction) is, at best, asinine. In your case I suspect it’s intentional rape apologia.
“1. Go to the storytelling part, Police sucks, Court sucks
2. Skip the rest and move to attention-therapy.”
*ignores the red herring and appeals to emotion* Wtf is “attention-therapy”? No, seriously, what is that red herring? My best guess is you mean Rogerian person centered therapy, and idk about in Sweden, but that’s not what most psychs here practice.
“Art doesnt have any criterum for representation. Thus artists need not care whether the art gives a representative view of the world OR whether it just make people believe something is far worse (more common) than it is.”
Need to care, as in required? No. Never ever do care? Bullshit. And again, idk about in Sweden, but the CDC (and other studies) have found about 1 in 5 American women will be raped within her lifetime. Oh wait, nevermind, the CDC only asks if they were raped, they don’t cross check with police records and violate the anonymity a study like that requires. (Note, “a study like that” means “personally sensitive data that the person may not be honest about without anonymity” — any report you see about the rate of homosexuality is the same method…or can people effectively self report that but not rape?)
Re: Swedish rape law — it’s like the MA law above with the strict 18 over-under cutoff? Feminists are usually in favor of the “Romeo and Juliet” law version (what CT uses). Idk enough on your laws to say the change wasn’t because of feminists, but to blame all feminists, including ones with no ties to your country, is just a bit asshole. (It’s also a fallacy btw)
“There is no “stat. rape” in Sweden. Thus the law says if somebody have sex with a 14 year old in Sweden thats rape.”
Stat rape is short for statutory rape, meaning rape under the statutes because consent is moot, minors cannot consent — your definition of minor will vary, but that’s still stat rape (CT doesn’t have either stat rape or rape in title, they use degrees of sexual assault, everyone not a lawyer still says stat rape and rape though).
Nancy Grace is in the US, and under US law, she is not guilty of libel. Argenti Aertheri already explained why, because Grace said those were her opinions. I don’t know if that would be the same with Sweden’s free speech and libel laws, though.
Hate speech is against the law in other countries, but it’s protected speech in the US. That’s why groups like the Westboro Baptist Church can picket funerals with hateful signs. I know other countries ban them, though. So if a US journalist wants to be racist on air, zie could legally. I’m not saying it’s right either. I’m just saying what is allowed under the First Amendment in the US.
I agree that Grace gives one sided accounts of court cases. She is very strongly pro prosecution, and she can be a jerk about it, too. That doesn’t mean she’s guilty of libel under US law, though, and as long as her show gets good ratings, it will stay on the air.
Sharculese said this
This might be a source of confusion here. We’re trying to compare legal systems and the
media from different countries, and what’s true in the US is not necessarily true in Sweden.
“What I said was you gotta separate stories about feeling raped from people proven to being raped. This is done in several different categories”
See the above referenced example of how “rape occurred, for sure, proven later, but police refused to take the report” — that’s probably the most common category.
You also missed — rape occurred, but the victim doesn’t report it to avoid having to face their rapists in court // to avoid having their entire sex life dragged through the mud // because the US’s rape conviction rate is abysmal.
“At no point in this does it matter who the victim is or who the suspect is.”
Unless Swedish police are required to take all reports, it has bearing on how the police respond.
Howard — two options with the “halfway punishment” thing — either he wants “Romeo and Juliet” laws, or he’s pulling yet more rape apologia. Considering my home state has “Romeo and Juliet” laws, and only uses sexual assault, and I already explained that, the whole “when it’s just sexual assault” thing probably means rape apologia, again.
“Because his golden age era was one where as long as you didn’t hold a knife to her throat you got off easy, no matter what else you might do.”
From what I can follow if his legal views, that sounds about right.
Pecunium —
“Actually his “innocent until proven guilty” routine is sadly not special. It’s a long-used tactic of the rape denialist/apologist/encouragist.”
Well yes, they just aren’t usually so amazingly self-contradictory about it (you know I marvel at the level of cognitive dissonance some people are capable of, that was more the point of that line).
Re: Lizzie Borden, I suspect she probably did do it, I just find it odd most people, even now, assume she was convicted, and based on what? Public opinion that not fainting meant she was guilty? Your answer of “because of the other evidence” makes sense, versus the people who go “wait, she wasn’t found guilty?” — I’m sorry, it’s 90 degrees here and my brain is jello, please pardon my half nonsense reply, it is any less muggy there? (or are you still away and thus not suffering in this heat?)
Re: assault — his example seemed to be actually stabbing someone, so that was the law I checked, CT uses degrees for that as well, and the type of assault you’re referencing is threatening and a misdemeanor. If I followed his example, it was saying that stabbing someone in the abdomen is treated as a less serious crime than having sex with a minor (and this is because of some feminist conspiracy). So I checked CT law, because it’s very easy to search, and pulled the closest matching laws — still not really the same laws as Sweden doesn’t seem to have “Romeo and Juliet” laws, but close enough.
The sentence for threatening (what CT calls assault without injury) is way less than most sexual assault sentences though, yeah.
Re: his use of the word force — it isn’t even just that not physical force isn’t force, but that physical force where maybe she could’ve fought him off can’t be force (the first woman in the Assange case, all that shit about how she’s bigger than him so how could he pin her?!?!!)
Aktivarum re: Myoo and cloudiah — citation needed, that’s all I’m saying on that, since swearing at you will surely just cause you to ignore me. Particularly, show that there was no system in pre-colonial Africa (you’ll have to discount all forms of justice used by every single tribe to do this, so good luck!)
Argenti: I’m in Canada, and the heat is as bad; also I’m in a place with no AC, and I want a shower something fierce. But I’m better at dealing with crappy weather than most.
You’re right–I’m being anglo-centric–not just anglo-centric, but pretty damned USA-centric.
I’m going to go quietly to my room and think about the privilege involved in that and maybe later talk about the way the USA system has tied itself into a knot of ‘this is the only way, this is the exact same way as folks in all civilized places do things, do you want to be barbarians.’
…which I should have known, given that not ten minutes ago I was ranting my head off someplace else about the way our prisons are set up, and how we pretend it’s the same elsewhere when it’s really not.
Should have. Privilege. Sorry.
(Akky, I haven’t forgot you–you’re still a rape apologist!!)
Pecunium — just as hot up there huh? ick! I do not do heat, I think I’m going to dump a ice cube tray into the fish tank, and then the rest into my water bottle, it is way too early for the tank to be hitting 90 >.< (I'll survive, the fish may actually not, I already lost one to a combo of this heat and old age)
A…is for the ass from which you pull your facts!
K…is for the knowledge you completely lack!
T…is for the thought you cannot do!
I…is for the ICK that you can do and do do!
V…is for this verse that you inspire!
A…is for the arguments that you retire!
R…is for the rules of evo-psych you lovingly recite!
U…is for the unique stamina you have that really bites!
M…is for the muck you’ve trucked to this site!
Put it all together and what does it spell?
AKTIARUM our lengthiest TROLL!
ARKTIVARUM! Blast it.
Fuck. You.
Yes.
kirbywarp — “But if a story were particularly unbelievable, such as someone claiming to have been raped by police (why hello, strawmonster), it would be met with skepticism.”
That does actually happen, and I suspect you knew that, but I’m making the point extra clear for Aktiarum.
“See the above referenced example of how “rape occurred, for sure, proven later, but police refused to take the report” — that’s probably the most common category.”
I’d meant that “police refuse to take report” is probably the most common category, but was referencing this case. Note that last paragraph —
So no, I do not see what the police and courts say as the be all and end all of whether a rape occurred, fuck you very much.
And Re: “Revictimized means Second Victimization and here is another example”
Here’s the entire abstract, instead of just the one sentence he liked —
But that doesn’t mean “made to be a victim again” and thus my defining “victim” for you is irrelevant? The mind, it boggles. (And I see you’ve resorted to citing things behind a paywall so I can’t pick apart their method, or only when the study actually says the inverse of what you claim?)
@Argenti:
Yeah, I know, though I didn’t think of it at the time I wrote the post. Hard to make a point about an unbelievable rape story when so rape actually happens in so many ways. -_-
kirbywarp — try violating the laws of physics? Except even then I’d be wary of flat out discounting it, given that the mentally ill are often not believed and also victims of crime more often than the not mentally ill — sure the laws of physics parts would be an embellishment, but that doesn’t mean that no rape occurred…yeah I’ve got nothing. Anyways, by Aktiarum’s standard a rape didn’t occur unless a rapist is convicted (does a murder not occur if a murderer isn’t convicted? o.O?)
This is one of the funniest cases of sexism in action I’ve seen in ages. So, to summarise = trollboy thinks that the fact that feminists tend to believe women who say they’ve been raped is terribly upsetting and offensive. In the interests of fairness, he wants to instead automatically assume that anyone who says she’s* been raped is mistaken (he’s too cowardly to say “lying”) unless she is able to successfully prosecute her rapist and secure a conviction. Instead of instinctively siding with the accuser, he would have us instinctively side with the accused. Which, like everyone who proposes this idea, he thinks is more fair than the other way around.
*I’m guessing that if the victim was a man he’d somehow manage to dredge up a bit more empathy.
“I’m guessing that if the victim was a man he’d somehow manage to dredge up a bit more empathy.”
Either he didn’t go through those Project Unbreakable links, or that’s incorrect — I included some male victims (admittedly only a few, as most of their signs did include references to force, and trollboy seems to acknowledge rape by force, and only by force, but yeah, they’re there).
The rest sounds right though, except not just “more fair than the other way around” but some sort of feminist propaganda campaign.
I don’t think he’s 12-15 though btw, his English is too good, particularly considering I would guess it’s his second language. I’m thinking more like “oh gods are you a frosh?” myself (though, in practice, my only real issue with the frosh is they bring all sorts of strange germs and I get sick Every. Fucking. Year. as a result)
What is this, I don’t even-
Amnesia — if I’m generous it simply means that some rapes are legally proven, but most are not, and those are different things; or that there’s what I tend to call “legal rape” though “illegal rape” would be more accurate, and then there’s lack of consent but not illegal where it occurred.
Except he’s said the latter isn’t rape at all but a feminist propaganda campaign. Took two weeks, but I’m beginning to be able to figure out wtf he’s actually trying to say — in this case I’m pretty sure it’s that anything besides legally proven rape isn’t rape, but someone simply “feeling raped” and thus, um…feminist propaganda!!
I think he’s of the opinion that if it isn’t a legally proven rape, it isn’t a rape, and thus there is no rapist, and thus the (probably actually a) rapist was acting ethically. The logical gaps are many, and deep crevices, so I’m only sort of sure on that though. (And I’m trying to answer for him because his answers, as you’ve seen I’m sure, make no goddamned sense, if they’re even answering the question at all)
Aktivarum: “You are assuming things, I actually have real rape victims in my family and know way more about the suject than I care to discuss with people at a public forum.”
Why? What about it is something you don’t want to talk about.
As a point of curiosity, I assume their attackers were convicted, since otherwise you would be inconsistent in your statements about guilt/innocence, and absent a conviction we can’t assume you think a rape occurred.
Me, I think it did, but I want to know why *you* say it did.
remember, there can’t be false rape accusations, men are always the abusers, man rape does not exist, misandry does not exist, only women can be harmed, and the woman has 0 responsibilities when the couple fucks up.
Yes, yes “man bad, woman good” — we hear it plenty from NWO.
I’ll pick a simple one, could you cite where anyone here has said male rape does not exist?
Why do people who don’t actually read this blog keep commenting on it?
And why keep commenting on dead posts and the fucking glossary?