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.
Nah, women reject attempted murderers. Can’t think why that put so many people off Hugo – I guess we’re just picky that way
Oh Crella, can’t you read what you write?
What is it that defines, “ingratiates”? I don’t hold feminist beliefs to ingratiate myself with women. I have them because I believe them?
What is it to, “put women on a pedestal”?
Schwyzer was (is) castigated because he confessed to abusing women. He was (IMO) tolerated far longer than he ought have been; because his descriptions of his actions were, at best, problematic.
If I were to do what he did, I’d deserve what he got. More than he got, actually. I think he was treated fairly lightly. He confessed to trying to kill someone.
The use of “mangina” is actually an attempt at shaming language. It fails because it rests on false premises.
1: That calling people names is actually going to make them feel bad.
1a: That “mangina” is such a name.
2: That all men fear the idea of being called effeminate.
3: That men who are in favor of treating women as equals actuall care (on a personal level) what the douchenozzles of the world; who don’t think women are actually people, think of them.
“Mangina” Haha, get it?!
Man + vagina = inferior man!
Real men have masssive cocks and big hairy ballsacks, right?
Thank you for the glossary; it definitely makes navigating this acronym-riddled environment easier. It might be worth adding the Nice Guy phenomenon to the Incel definition. I’m referring to the men who insist on telling people that they are Nice Guys and lament long and loudly about how women won’t date them.
The last bit of the PUA definition (emphasis mine), seems a bit problematic.
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 is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old female ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Is the phrase “female ploy” used jokingly or seriously? Clarify, please?
Thanks.
What a sad little blog.
http://i.imgur.com/ChRau.jpg
Not as sad as trolling a faq page, Colin.
As a male feminist I don’t feel particularly hated by men or women for me being a feminist. People have weird hangups about feminists but most people don’t tend to hate them. I have notice feminists who are women get the worst end of the stick especially with the stereotypes about what it means to be a feminist.
I don’t get it. It’s saying women laugh at the “male” part and men laugh at the “feminist” part? Because I don’t see how it works at all the other way around, and it doesn’t work front-ways, so…
Yeah, no, it’s just dumb.
I do not know the labels, but I do know that I missed the bus, early on, no female friends, no dates, just understanding that I was looking at a life without women. That is just the way it worked out. Probably better for everybody even though I did grow up believing that I could be a good husband and a good father.
You do know that you can still try to get to know women, right? It’s not a bus that only comes once. Find the right route. Pick a stop. Get on the bus. See what happens.
Feminism – means an idea of what the state goverment should look like – Women means female human persons – Women (as well as men) are individuals and thus can be either for the feminist idea of goverment or for any other idea of goverment. Any opinion regarding goverment has zero to do with women. Women compared to equal numbers of men are clearly not even interested in the subject of politics. In voting numbers women could elect whichever american president they want since years back.
PUA – Your descripition is not correct at all. To put it in simple easy-for-all terms PUA is the male equivalent of female lifestyle-magazines like Cosmopolitan and Plaza telling women how they can be hotter by giving false first impression and also telling women they have the right to increase sexual desirability by these tips. PUA does the exact same things however while male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status. And no this does not mean “playing hard to get” It means not needing other peoples permission, having fun and giving value.
“PUA does the exact same things however while male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status. And no this does not mean “playing hard to get” It means not needing other peoples permission, having fun and giving value.”
And this is what is wrong with the PUA attitude – that it doesn’t matter what men look like. This is evolutionary psychology propaganda. Good looking men don’t have to be PUAs because women will approach them. Being good looking is a passive way to attract sexual attention and that’s why PUAs will have none of it – because it’s not manly to sit there and be good looking – you’re supposed to do something.
The core of the PUA belief-system is that men don’t have to please women in order to get women. They believe that men have to “game” women in order to get women. Because pleasing women is only giving women what they want, while gaming women is only giving men what they want. Giving women what they want makes a man weak. A real man tells women what they really want – which of course is to be gamed.
I’m just glad that PUAs for the most part are not going to reproduce.
Nancy:
“And this is what is wrong with the PUA attitude – that it doesn’t matter what men look like. This is evolutionary psychology propaganda.”
Hoppsan!
Both those claims are wrong. You are confusing the method part (PUA) with the science part (EP) Since PUA is not a science you can say whatever you want as long as it produces results. This includes saying “looks doesnt matter” – however looks and style are clearly a part of it and what doesnt matter is what you could do nothing about. For instance a short guy is told height doent matter – why? Cause it makes him more confident.
Girls do not care whether its true or not. its the confidence itself they want.
Claiming EP say it doesnt matter what the man looks like is like claiming Womens magazines say hot women might as well dance and sound like chickens – What they actually say is when everything else is normal – a guy would gain more from power than from looks and a girl would gain more from looks than from power. Statistics show social advantage for powerful men – but not for powerful women.
“Good looking men don’t have to be PUAs because women will approach them”
You seem to assume I think women approaching me is something of special value. All it means being approached by her first is me not having to be the one who start the conversation! I still have to turn her on and I am still the one responsible for her feelings of comfort. PUA is the art of seduction – not the art of approaching and talking to people..
“Being good looking is a passive way to attract sexual attention and that’s why PUAs will have none of it – because it’s not manly to sit there and be good looking – you’re supposed to do something.”
Not at all. Being good looking is a way to attract social attention. The way to attract sexual attention is “being hot” (see writer Ariel Levy) When women wanna be hot they increase make-up and decreas amount of clothing. When guys wanna be hot they act more aggressive. Typical example: Rock stars… Where do you see successful female rock bands? Female Maiden? Female Metallica?
“The core of the PUA belief-system is that men don’t have to please women in order to get women.”
PUA does not have any belief systell. It doesnt matter why other people think stunning women want to make-out (Nor does it to most women matter why guys like a push-up bra). Just that they are doing it prove the point.
“They believe that men have to “game” women in order to get women.”
As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines. Saying PUA believe men have to “game” women is like attacking womens magazines for having ads about make-up, hair-extensions, wonderbras or whatever with the claim the corporations involved believe women have to “game” men with darker eyes, red lips, bigger chest etc.
“Because pleasing women is only giving women what they want, while gaming women is only giving men what they want.”
Not at all! Women are 100% free to have sex with whatever guy they find most pleasing. Whatever women find pleasing is what a PUA would need to do. Whichever guy she had sex with should be the one she thought was most pleasing.
“Giving women what they want makes a man weak. A real man tells women what they really want – which of course is to be gamed.”
Actually , giving women what they want makes women wanna have sex. Having sex without giving women what they want is impossible.
…um, yeah, it’s totally impossible for gay men to have sex without first calling up the central office of women and making a sacrifice to the altar of ‘what women want.’ After that, they’re home free.
In terms of advice, women’s magazines mostly print bullshit that’s obviously wrong on many levels. Thus I will agree that “game” is the approximate male equivalent of that.
In terms of ads, you don’t seem to understand what advertising is all about. Advertisers don’t give a shit whether specific products actually improve women’s chances at attracting potential mates, or whether any product, pitched to ANYONE, actually does works as advertised. What they try to do, instead, is create a sense of necessity, an expectation and an illusory promise through narcissistic appeal. That’s all. Which, co
me to think of it, is pretty much what PUA “gurus” do.
He seems not to understand that feminists specifically do attack women’s magazines for those very things all the time… it’s like he actually doesn’t know anything about feminism.
Whoops.
Aktivarum: As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines.
As told by whom? I look at the women’s magazines when I’m at the store… they aren’t about how to “trick” men into going to bed with you, so you can give them a “pump and dump”. They don’t tell you to isolate men from their friends so you can work them over at your leisure.
No, they say, “do this special something in bed so he won’t leave you”. “Ten tricks to keep your hair exciting so he won’t ogle other women”, and shit like that.
Very different focus. Or perhaps not… they both tell women they aren’t actually important without a man.
And the PUA gurus… they are some scary people, “Push until you get a “definite” no”. That seems to go hand in hand with your comment that it’s about not needing to get permission.
As to the EvPsych… tell me more. Any studies to support your PUA theories? Peer reviewed, with data?
Tell me all about it
Howard:
“…um, yeah, it’s totally impossible for gay men to have sex without first calling up the central office of women….”
Thats funny! Since the context was PUA its already implied the sex is with women. You know that already so why do you pretend you dont?
LOL WHAT? Um, that’s hilariously wrong. Feminists have a wide range of political positions, though they do think women should have equal political rights-whatever they think those should be.
Are there zero women who live in your country? Zero women as residents or citizens? Zero women subjected to its laws? Even if you asininely ignore laws targeting women for discrimination, women would still be citizens and residents, therefore opinions regarding the governance of the countries where they live has quite a bit to do with them (as they are approx. half of the people).
Didn’t you just say that feminism was a theory about the gov’t? Okay, you’re wrong, but you just contradicted your own definition. Also, women vote at higher rates than men, not lower ones. That sexism often denies women access to positions of political power does not prove that women aren’t interested in politics or government.
Pst pst women aren’t a hivemind. Also, NO, NOT MAJORITY RULES!!! THIS DEMOCRACY IS AWFUL!!! That each person has a vote, so groups with more numbers have more votes is sort of a feature…constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.
Amused:
“In terms of advice, women’s magazines mostly print bullshit that’s obviously wrong on many levels.”
Tell me one thing then, why do women who get very well payed for creating male attention normally do the things described? Are you telling me you have better advice? I have a friend who works as hostess (Car-shows and stuff), why dont you tell me some better ways to get lots of guys to wanna have sex then? Cause that translates to money (Giving you the choice and power) Because that is the actual purpose and – for any reason – having a different goal does not warrant as valid criticism.
“Thus I will agree that “game” is the approximate male equivalent of that.”
PUA is the male equivalent. “Game” Can be anything as revealed by the book-title “The inner game of tennis”
“In terms of ads, you don’t seem to understand what advertising is all about. Advertisers don’t give a shit whether specific products actually improve women’s chances at attracting potential mates, or whether any product, pitched to ANYONE, actually does works as advertised.”
Well, I did not discuss advertising in general and I don t agree the products arent working as advertised. I see in fact people who depend financially/personally on them using them with success. My guess would be you don t agree with the purpose of the products and then your argument here is one of ethics – not function. This fallacy is very common for PUA.
“What they try to do, instead, is create a sense of necessity, an expectation and an illusory promise through narcissistic appeal. That’s all. Which, co
me to think of it, is pretty much what PUA “gurus” do.”
Actually post-Mystery-Style-era what PUA gurus do is 1) Have lessions regarding what women like and why. 2) Take students to clubs and make them do approaches , telling them how to improve what they were doing.
The most common criticism of PUA is not of function but of ethics. Most people think of love and sex as a game of chance. Their proplem with PUA is not that PUA doesnt get more phone numbers – I guraantee you – we do! Their problem is the fact PUA didnt “happen” to get phone numbers but actually had this and purpose and acted in ways that speed up the process and give a better odds succeeding.
It was the same thing when researchers wanted to do studies on love and romance. One senator flat out said (regarding grants) “bullshit, people dont want science about love” Well, there was an outcry about political control of science and the researchers got 80.000 dollars in the end – clearly its a difference between wanting love to be chance – and it actually being true.
Well, it’s both. It is grossly inethical to emotionally abuse people to get them to have sex with you, but it is also generally ineffective.
I doubt you even convince yourself of this, let alone us XD
Wow, that totally sailed over your head, didn’t it? She explained to you how advertising works. If you think PUAs don’t try to sell their teaching services by making you feel you need them, you either suck at the concept of advertising, or haven’t actually heard its afficionados speak. To hear them tell it, trying to have sex with women without Game is a sucker’s bet which will never happen without massive amounts of effort and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain XD
The only element to this I’ve seen be accurate is that people are fucking brutal to women who do not use sufficient product, in higher class establishments. I know programmers who are harrassed for insufficient(ly fancy) makeup.
Of stupid crap about sex? Agreed XD
pecunium:
“As told by whom?”
Me in the earlier post above. (Another context-based argument btw)
“I look at the women’s magazines when I’m at the store… they aren’t about how to “trick” men into going to bed with you, so you can give them a “pump and dump”.”
Off course not! They are about tricking men to want to go to bed to you giving you the woman power and choice whether she want free drinks, dating or sex – putting men in the role giving women whatever she think she needs. Since 40 years back most media want to empower women. PUA off course empower men but most people simply dont like gender equality when it refers to men being the part empowered.
“They don’t tell you to isolate men from their friends so you can work them over at your leisure.”
Well, women do not need to isolate guys from their guy friends cause when a woman wants to sleep with a guy, HIS friends are not allowed to do 1/10 of the stupid things a woman allow from her friends when I am trying to pick her up.. I asked several women about this and they often claim they try to “protect” their friends However they dont get the fact guys with lots of gf:s are better att handling this than guys with fewer.
“No, they say, “do this special something in bed so he won’t leave you”. “Ten tricks to keep your hair exciting so he won’t ogle other women”, and shit like that.”
Now you are confusing relationship and courtship. Every single advice in PUA as well as womens mags are about improving chances in courtship. For relationship advice you need an advisor who is educated in psychology and knows what the persons are like.
“Very different focus. Or perhaps not… they both tell women they aren’t actually important without a man.”
Actually, none of them said that. They say IF you already are dating a guy and want it to be exclusive this is what you can do. The rest was your subjective opinion regarding why they would say anything at all.
“And the PUA gurus… they are some scary people, “Push until you get a “definite” no”. That seems to go hand in hand with your comment that it’s about not needing to get permission.”
a) When saying “untill you get no” it implies you HAVE to have her permission.
b) The context of pushing until you get no are the kind of guys usually giving up. What kind of guys do you think the girls normally had sex with? Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no. PUA just analysed the situation and gave it a name.
“As to the EvPsych… tell me more. Any studies to support your PUA theories? Peer reviewed, with data?”
PUA does not have any theory – “A” stand for art..
But yes evolutionary psychology supports a situation where females who invest more are choosier in courtship (Trivers investment theory) It also supports that women when asked which guy is hottest use information not related to looks. Resarchers proved women statistics on attraction change with information on social stats. By having 9 pictures and asking women which of 3 guys was hottest women – without knowing it – show the same guy who had 4 on looks got a 9 when the sign said he had a different social status,
Researcher David Buss proved cross-culturally this is not just true for the western world but also true in different cultures. And then off course we have harvard professor Steven Pinker clearly peer-revewed and never without data on anything. Currently he works with showing how and why there is lesser and lesser violence in the world.
Howard:
“He seems not to understand that feminists specifically do attack women’s magazines for those very things all the time… it’s like he actually doesn’t know anything about feminism.”
Actually I never said feminists do not attack womens magazines. I said they do not attack womens magazines because the mags give women more power over men by trickery (game). Also the attacks are based on the straw man fallacy. Neither PUA nor Womens Mags tell what you should do. They both tell you HOW you do things if you want to.
Free Will is the key to understanding this.
Rutee:
“Well, it’s both. It is grossly inethical to emotionally abuse people to get them to have sex with you, but it is also generally ineffective.”
Seducing women is not the same as emotional abuse. In fact, people who are down with emotional abuse do not need seduction skills since they can simply trick women into believing they will one day marry and have kids. If they were ok with that they already had all the sex they wanted and would not need PUA
“I doubt you even convince yourself of this”
Thats funny cause it can only mean you give ridiciolusly high value to getting a womans number. Do you also need convincing when talking about hard things to do like the ability to ride a bicycle or cooking food? You know common stuff where contesting the ability doing it better with practise is just stupid.
“Wow, that totally sailed over your head, didn’t it? She explained to you how advertising works.”
We were not even discussing advertising. Also we are talking about human beings who have a free will to not buy the product regardless of the ad. One of the three researchers writing about Free Will is Kathleen Vohs, Associate professor of marketing so I am pretty sure they do know the subject.
“If you think PUAs don’t try to sell their teaching services by making you feel you need them, you either suck at the concept of advertising, or haven’t actually heard its afficionados speak. To hear them tell it, trying to have sex with women without Game is a sucker’s bet which will never happen without massive amounts of effort and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”
Well the fact is research proves very high correlation between number of girlfriends/ amounts of sex/ chilren, and resources – and only for men not for women. In fact women with better resources seem to be more likely to be single and childless. Which is one of the ad-companies most wanted groups.
“The only element to this I’ve seen be accurate is that people are fucking brutal to women who do not use sufficient product, in higher class establishments. I know programmers who are harrassed for insufficient(ly fancy) makeup.”
I was talking about women where the job is to attract people for money. For example if a waitress is hotter – she normally gets more money. If a singer is hotter, she normally gets more playtime sells more records and get richer. Observe Avril Lavigne who marketed herself as “against dropping clothes” on covers then got a few years older and made every feminist disappointed by – yes dropping clothes on covers herself.
darksidecat:
“Um, that’s hilariously wrong. Feminists have a wide range of political positions, though they do think women should have equal political rights-whatever they think those should be.”
Well fact is two philosophy professors have analysed feminism and written books about it. Both concluded the same thing. There are 2 feminist movements. One for equal treatment of women and one for special treatment of women. Since women in general 2012 already have equal rights with men, the more active feminists seem with few exceptions be people who are AGAINST equal rights.
For example the Womens Center at Simon Fraser University went against the plans regarding a Mens Center. A gender studies person comments:
“The idea that the definition of equality should be that all people are treated the same is something that women’s studies scholars have challenged through research and theoretical work over the years”
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/05/03/SFU-Mens-Centre/
“Are there zero women who live in your country?”
Not at all, however women votes for several different political parties and this means what one woman likes another woman hates. Feminists supporting one woman is against a different woman.
“women vote at higher rates than men, not lower ones.”
Voting do not require interest in politics. According to several newspapers more women voted for Hillary Clinton that time when she started crying.
“That sexism often denies women access to positions of political power does not prove that women aren’t interested in politics or government.”
1) How often is sexism proven and how often is sexism just assumed? The Sexual Paradox contest the claim for sexism.
2) Many studies show women are less interested than men in taking risks and making sacrifices. How did feminists respond? They killed Larry Summers carreer.
3) When i said women are not interested. I meant if you have 1000 random men and 1000 random women more men will be interested (Measuered in time money) in politics than women.
“Pst pst women aren’t a hivemind.”
Never said they were. I said if they wanted to vote for women they can.
“constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”
Actually, The Constitution is a check on the goverment. Historically majorities was opressed by kings and churches (something u should know) making a law to protect us from the majority completely redundant.
Also the definition of democracy is letting more people be a part of making decisions. Not finding excuses to only let your friends do it.