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 am sure Shakira, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue, Madonna, Beyonce Knowles and Britney Spears feel very very victimized.”
Considering Britney Spears went all kinds of publicly mentally ill because of exactly this shit maybe reconsider whether having everything she did in the public spotlight was what she signed up for?
Man, when you put all his fallacies in a row like that, it really does look like he has absolutely nothing to back up his ideas and claims and it trying really hard to hide it, doesn’t it?
“Second. Liar.” — yeah he’s loving the straw man and ignoratio elenchi fallacies today (and enough red herrings I want to make proverbial herring stew)
“Give me strength. “I don’t ignore them, they just aren’t as big as Motley Crue!” Motley Crue?? REALLY?”
“Typical example: Rock stars… Where do you see successful female rock bands? Female Maiden? Female Metallica?
No I dont ignore the female rock musicians at all. I just say they are smaller and less popular in rock while female musicians are huge stars in the styles focusing on hotness, not toughness.”
And goalpost moving, but that fallacy was damned obvious.
“Or that being able to find a mate was a larger selective pressure on our ancient ancestors than being able to not die.” — right? I was reading something on breast cancer just yesterday that suggested it may’ve been less known in historical times because of everything else killing people younger. Let’s just ignore that smallpox’s 50% death rate only stopped happening last century eh?
Not to mention… if men don’t make further investments in offspring, won’t they be eaten by those marauding mammoths?
I mean, duh, right?
Howard — that’s why I bothered doing it 🙂 Really though, he came here to argue the definition of PUA? Well ok, but what in the world does that have to do, for example, abortion, or rock stars, or the appearance of waitstaff?? Absolutely fuck all.
And that was way more amusing than trying to engage with his epic goal post shifting and arguments of verbosity. I honestly hadn’t realized how long it had gotten until I pasted it over, my textedit screen is ~3x the width of the comments so it looked like just a page of text, looks more like a thesis paper on here though.
Actually after what happened to Britney Spears, I would say she does. The unrealistic expectations for her and other artists like her are very hard to deal with.
Argenti: Note also that his, “conclusive” claim in Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh, wasn’t ironclad.
‘We argue that, given society’s sexual double standard, token resistance may be a rational behavior. It could, however, have negative consequences…’”
Token resistance, may be, negative consequence.
So, a “token resistance” (e.g. the use of, “I don’t know if I should) might be rational, because of the double standards in society (which PUA tend to encourage), and that pursuing that line might have negative consequence.
This is his argument that “women really mean yes when they say no, so you have to force them to prove they mean no.”
Rock solid interpretation there.
Pecunium, I’m going to need some help with this one! If the pope says [thing] you’d then claim all Catholics do [thing] because the pope said? So all Catholics are in favor of shuffling pedophile priests and against birth control? (hint, most Catholics loathe the former, and about equal number of Catholics and non-Catholics use birth control; but those statistics are apparently moot because the pope said!) …and he’s not elected, he’s appointed by bishops…
Hoo-boy, can o’ worms.
The Pope is lot’s of things. He’s the head of the Church. As such, he sets lots of policy.
He’s also a moral authority, and as such he writes letters of guidance (encyclicals) which are meant to shape the thinking of the clergy and the laity on matters which affect both the inner life of the faithful, and which affect how they look at broader social issues.
He is a shaper of the moralising background through his ability to name bishops and cardinals (the latter having the secondary effect of shaping the philosophy on which his immediate (and perhaps subsequent) successors will be chosen.
He does all those things with the help of others. Those others tend to be Religious (by which I mean they are people who have taken orders). They are also often quite expert in their fields. I am acquainted with one of the Papal Astronomers, he’s got, IIRC, a Ph.D in Astronomy.
All of those things are guides. They are neither Doctrine, nor Dogma (though they reflect both, and may be used to later shape them). He is not, on those matters, infallible; nor is his word either absolute, nor incontrovertible.
The only times at which this is the case is when he makes a formal pronouncement, Ex cathedra, which has only been done once (on the Doctrine of the Miracle of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary). There is (and I forget on what subject) another occaision which is arguably an Ex cathedric declaration, but it’s argued from context, no other formal declaration has been made.
So the faithful, using their faith, their reason and the “guidance of the spirit” can make their own decisions.
And this is why things like the The Friars Minor telling the pope he’s being a dick in his treatment of women in holy orders. happens.
That’s the Franciscans (the Provinces [i.e. the equivalent of Dioceses] in the US) saying the Pope is wrong. In public.
Here’s an excerpt from the beginning of the letter:
As religious brothers in the Franciscan tradition, we are rooted in a stance of gratitude that flows from awareness of the myriad ways that God is disclosed and made manifest in the world. For us, there can be no dispute that God has been and continues to be revealed through the faithful (and often unsung) witness of religious women in the United States. Thus we note with appreciation that the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (CDF) “acknowledges with gratitude the great contributions of women Religious to the Church of the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by Religious over the years.” We certainly know how much our service has been enriched by the many gifts you bring to these ministries.
However, your gift to the Church is not only one of service, but also one of courageous discernment. The late 20th century and the beginning of this century have been times of great social, political and cultural upheaval and change. Such contextual changes require us, as faithful members of the Church, to pose questions that at first may appear to be controversial or even unfaithful, but in fact are asked precisely so that we might live authentically the charisms we have received, even as we respond to the “signs of the times.” This is the charge that we as religious have received through the “Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life” from the Second Vatican Council and subsequent statements of the Church on religious life. We believe that your willingness to reflect on many of the questions faced by contemporary society is an expression of your determination to be faithful to the Gospel, the Church, the invitation from Vatican II and your own religious charisms. We remain thankful for and edified by your courage to engage in such reflection despite the ever-present risk of misunderstanding.
Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised. The efforts of LCWR to facilitate honest and faithful dialogue on critical issues of our times must not result in a level of ecclesial oversight that could, in effect, quash all further discernment.
They are, in short, telling the Pope to back off and let the women speak (among other things).
Slightly off topic, but I was a bit scared for a second when I looked at the picture at the top, it took me a few seconds to realise what it was. I thought it was a screencap from one of those cheesy videocam horror movies showing a nightvision shot of some sort of monster in the woods. O.O
Aktivarum: One guy from the world ranking. Not just anybody but somebody important.
me: I don’t care if he’s the pope, it’s still an anecdote and not a statistic.
Aktivarum: Its an elected hiearchy, he is representative – thus not just anecdotal.
So Aktivarum, first you have some goalpost shifting to go with your appeal to authority, but you’re also just plain wrong apparently — the pope is not representative of all Catholics, nor is that required by Catholicism, nor is he the “top dog” so to speak. Of course, this is an epic tangent at this point.
ShadetheDruid — lol I think that’s actually taking this back on topic, seeing how you’re commenting on the OP (that’s an angiogram of the heart, looks like it’s got a nice sized aneurysm too, but I’m nothing like a cardiologist [just a geek])
Pecunium — First, thank you for the explanation. Second, oh goodness no I wasn’t trying to be complete in my fallacy list, that’d take all day! (you’re right, and I’d imagine I missed a lot more too).
My original “cannot tell if idiot or gaslighting” has been solved though (guess which, go on, guess! XD )
How is, “being made to want sex” not force? The nonsensical addition of the phrase, “you do want” is nonsense (as in it makes no sense).
Being persuaded to want somethig is different from being, “made to want something”. The latter implies an impostion of outside will, i.e. a lack of freely given consent.
That, bucko, is rape.
HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?
That’s you interpreting what is of value. It’s you saying, “well, I don’t like the other things you value, but I like the way you look so the rest of your person does’t matter, I’ll fuck you and forget you.”
That’s using a person as an object. That’s negating the other person’s humanity. It’s immoral (certainly it violates the Categorical Imperatives).
That you are too self-centered, and lacking in empathy is a problem for everyone who has to interact with you.
What ignorant idocy is this…? They dont ask people who they find attractive. They ask people to grade 1-10. If you would not eff anyone dont give anyone a 9 of 10.
That 1-10 scale is asking who is attractive. On your metric (the attractiveness of the idea of having sex with them) it’s attraction that’s being measured.
Good Lord!, do you look at what you write before you hit “post”, or is this mental cowflop the extent of your reasoning? Show a little self-respect and compare one sentence against (at the very least) the one that precedes it.
No I dont. Professor Terri Conley of Michigan U does the mistake of assuming logical knowledge trumphs emotional reality.
I guess you don’t compare one sentence to the next.. You just admitted you aren’t letting pesky things like facts change how you think, because your, “emotional reality” trumps it.
All the while claiming that the problem with the feminists who disagree with you is they are letting their emotions prevent them from accepting the, “facts” you are spouting.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
Argenti: I wasn’t making comment on your list (My God, but you have the patience of a saint, so much work for nothing more than the sake of doing it… it’s not as if he’s going to heed any of the points you made).
I was just pointing out that his chosen evidence (what a rational person would presume to be the best thing he has, since he quotes it, directly) belies itself.
He couldn’t argue his way out of a paper sack with a razor-blade and a firehose.
As to the Pope…. as I said, can o’ worms. And “Ex cathedra” makes it worse, because it’s a very misunderstood idea. I had someone try to beat me up with it, “the Pope said it, so you have to agree with it.” When I told him why he was wrong, and someone else asked him how he liked being thoroughly smacked down (it was a memorable question, “How did you like pecunium shoving a pew full of facts up your ass?”) he said he knew the Pope didn’t have that power.
So he was using a common misconception to try to 1: make me look stupid, and 2: in the hope that I didn’t know better, and so would think I was 2a wrong, and 2b committing a sin.
He was an asshole before that, and I stopped paying any attention to what he said; because I had no way to measure his good faith. He was willing to lie/disregard facts in the hope his audience was ignorant of the truth: which he knew, and kept to himself.
“What ignorant idocy is this…?”
It’s — Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
As he previous said — “The researchers tell the women to tell us which guy is more attractive HOWEVER they also make sure women can read information of the guys – thus scientists can easily trick girls by asking them which guy is hotter and lie about which guy works as a club owner and which guy works at macdonalds.”
“Good Lord!, do you look at what you write before you hit “post”, or is this mental cowflop the extent of your reasoning?”
Considering I’ve been having to use textedit (notepad for you windows users) to see all of my reply to him, I doubt he’s reading what he’s typing. Where was the claim about feminists and emotions though? I missed that highlight of this failure (and it basically completes my “nope, he’s failing to gaslight” suspicion)
Aktivarum — welcome to the internet, where we can all scroll up and reread your last stupid claim.
@ArkTroll: NOt gonna go at length because holyshit work, but all this crap you’re spewing about women cover models and how women are getting rewarded for appearance and thus not oppressed:
Photoshopping of horribly thin women who have to starve to meet beauty standards and then the results on their bodies are covered up: I don’t know why they just don’t move to totally photoshopped people for their covers (they=magazine editors, some of which yes, include women. Women can be complicit in supporting patriarchy);
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/06/12/too-fat-too-skinny/
Then they could have stuff like the Leather Butt Crack of DOOM:
http://www.themarysue.com/catwoman-0-cover/
*waves to pecunium and Argenti* Looking forward to reading your demolishment later AFTER last two frakking program assessment reports are in and I’m kicking back tonight.
lol one look at the rates of birth control use between Catholics and non-Catholics should make it clear that most Catholics do not actually believe it a sin, ergo they are not some how bound to do everything the pope say. This is hilarious though — “How did you like pecunium shoving a pew full of facts up your ass?”
And, as you said once, it’s not patience, it’s impatience, I got fed up with taking each new attempt seriously and thus attacked the whole set (either that or I inherited it, my grandmother had the patience of a saint so hey, maybe I got that from her too, won’t complain about that)
And what is intellectual honesty good for? Surely it is vastly overrated. The fallacies are interesting, but a fallacious argument is not bad, it can be even more beautiful than a non-fallacious. Context manipulation (wider than contextomy, because you can make up an arbitrary context) is a valuable gem int the serious debater’s arsenal. And lastly, why be so picky about the truth-value of statements?
talacaris — have you read all of what I was quoting from? Every other line is a serious fallacy, he directly contradicts his previous “points” and this is the damned glossary. I’m usually all for a good reductio ad absurdum, but this just isn’t logic, at all. There’s, say, reversing the genders in a sexual harassment case, and then there’s whatever the fuck that mess is.
“And lastly, why be so picky about the truth-value of statements?” — because he’s insisting they’re 100% factually correct and the way things are while claiming that more factually correct things are BS — can’t have it both ways.
Mostly because he got annoying about 4 days ago though.
Talacaris has either constructed the most perfect satirical troll-image ever… or is the worst troll on earth.
“Oh, you argue with your fancy facts… who cares! Fallacies can be beautiful… who cares if the argument is true?”
Howard — little does he realize my minor was studio arts and he just asked a damned artist that question.
talacaris, oh talacaris, I have but one reply to you — Artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up. Aktivarum is doing the later, if he’d like to try the former he needs to start over and try again. (or was that a terrible attempt at negging? If so I sense a complete lack of personal substance in you, have you questioned why it is you have no original thoughts?)
Argenti: lol one look at the rates of birth control use between Catholics and non-Catholics should make it clear that most Catholics do not actually believe it a sin, ergo they are not some how bound to do everything the pope say.
I know people who had their priests tell them to keep taking/see a doctor about getting hormonal BC, for menstrual cramps.
One was a friend who was converting. The priest who oversaw her conversion told her it wasn’t a sin.
As to family planning… It’s a bit more grey, but since rhythm is allowed, it’s a question of degree; one is allowed to try to prevent pregnancy (the argument is that rhythm allows God to make one pregnant if that’s God’s plan), so the question is means.
I figure that if God is so all-fired hot to make a woman pregant, God can make her BC fail, and so the Church is denying God’s agency, which is a sin. 🙂
It’s actually not too far off the arguments I’ve heard from priests explaining why they don’t condemn BC. What the Bishops are thinking I’ve no fucking clue; and I’d really like to see another JP 1, but it’s not likely to happen in my lifetime, more’s the fucking pity.
talacris: Why care about truth? Because the lies you think so beautiful are being used to hurt people.
Also, you cannot make intellectual claims without intellectual honesty and expect anything besides frustration and amusement in response. Eg his claim that half of men are evolutionary dead ends, backed up by a study that said nothing of the sort. He’s not using rhetoric to prove a point, he’s shifting the point to prove he’s right (oh another fallacy, we have a cart before horse here too!) — should he manage to get half as creative of Cierco’s fish arguments, I might be amused enough to take him seriously. As it stands he’s just insisting he’s right because he said so, and making up new topics to treat that way.
And, oh yeah, this is the damned glossary — troll an actual thread if you want to troll.
Silvery
So you are still insisting on truth and thinking that is very important. You are not thinkingdeceiving in order to cover the truth up is beautiful, aren’t you?
As it has been said : Trust no one, deny everything and blame everyone else. A beautiful motto to live by
“If so I sense a complete lack of personal substance in you, have you questioned why it is you have no original thoughts”
It is just a personal preference. On original thoughts, is it so that you are against plagiarism too?
@Pecunium: Thanks for that link–I hadn’t seen it before and am currently leading a cheerleading session for the Franciscans. Go, them!
(And SOOOOOOOOOOOO beautifully written! I am a sucker for beautifully constructed prose–the one thing I liked about George Will is the man could write!–and even nicer when I’m agreeing with it).
I nominate Talacaris for TROLL OF THE MONTH for this alone:
And what is intellectual honesty good for? Surely it is vastly overrated. The fallacies are interesting, but a fallacious argument is not bad, it can be even more beautiful than a non-fallacious. Context manipulation (wider than contextomy, because you can make up an arbitrary context) is a valuable gem int the serious debater’s arsenal. And lastly, why be so picky about the truth-value of statements?