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.
Yeah, no. There is some serious horseshit piling up high in this thread. My interest in feminism stems from a hope that we can somehow find ways to improve the lives of women everywhere and make the world a better place. If you feel that’s your cue to be a whiny child so be it.
Feel free to engage in all the silly naval gazing you want but spare us your wobbly goofball proclamations about “female nature”.
You should care more about your grammar and clarity of thought. You should also google “male ego”.
Is Katie collectively a friend to all of us through the power of feminism?
@brooked: If we are all David, then maybe our friends are all Katie. THE PLOT THICKENS.
“They should just accept that this is the new masculinity and allow men to live it and teach it as they please.”
No problem but there is one problem when you said “I love feminism. Its brings female nature out in its most purest form. So selfish, so dark.”
If is this how you teach your own MGTOW ‘herd’,then yes I must said I do have a problem with it…
i couldn’t care less if a man wants TO GTOW,but please don’t make it seems like women are the worst things that happen to you…
Don’t fucking tell me that women prioritize themselves over men,you basically undermine every mother’s effort in raising their own son..
Personally Katie and I consider each other acquaintances, not really friends.
Also, refect is a word, it’s just archaic. It means to eat and drink. Being accused of not refecting, while inaccurate and probably the result of a typo, is pretty refreshing IMO. It’s a nice break from the narrative that women constantly stuff our faces as a covert fat-gaining boner-killing operation, or that we demand that random men on the street buy us fancy dinners.
What is with the glossary trolls this week?
That’s true. Maybe we don’t care for male appreciation, particularly if it is based only on our looks. We prefer things like respect for our choices and boundaries, acknowledgement of our achievements, and recognition that we are, in fact, a diverse group of individuals with unique goals and opinions (just like men).
The men who “care about women” in the sense that you’re describing don’t actually care about women as human beings, as equals. They “care about them” in a way that an entitled, selfish, misogynistic douchenozzle with delusions of grandeur “cares” about anything or anyone: as an investment in their own personal well-being and nothing else.
The problem with the world isn’t women learning that they have value outside of how they are perceived by men. That’s a good thing. The problem with the world is the age-old mindset that celebrates selfishness over the genuine care of the well-being of other human beings. A mindset based on nothing but unempathetic calculation. The Simpsons once put it perfectly: “How often have you driven by a fire and thought ‘How can this benefit me?'”
That’s how every misogynist thinks; they don’t give a shit about how women actually experience the “care and appreciation” men force upon them, they only care about how the world can give them more, even at the expense of others, and how they can still rationalize things so that they appear the reasonable ones. Coincidentally, this is also how libertarians and other free market capitalists think, which is why most MRAs identify as libertarians.
So, when you wrote that feminism is, and I quote,
that’s not a positive claim about the nature of women? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
Except that acting like an entitled asshat whose maturity hasn’t been developing at all in the last couple of decades is not a “new” form of masculinity. Also, immature bullshit with no basis in facts should not be left unchallenged. It’s for the same reason we shouldn’t allow Young Earth Creationism to be taught as a scientific theory.
And, yet again, I am a man, and I think MGTOW are fuckin’ ridiculous. I think the masculine model that you’re celebrating is terrible, hurtful, restricting and old-fashioned. Most men do. Don’t presume to speak for the sea when you’re but a puddle.
What, exactly, would that “care” and “respect” encompass? Why, in your opinion, do women need to “appreciate” men for being men, instead of just appreciating them as fellow human beings who are neither better nor worse than themselves? Why, for the love of Pete, is it not enough that all human beings show a basic courtesy and kindness to each other as equals? What makes you so utterly insecure that you require the adoration of half of the human population to feel worthwhile, and, most importantly, what gives you the enormous sense of entitlement to argue that the other half of humanity should be required to show you adoration based on nothing but your gender?
Also, this:
Yeeeah, if only our society was equal*. But it isn’t. As long as women are treated as second-class citizens, as long as women get paid less for the same job, as long as workplaces show preferential treatment towards men, as long as reproductive health is made harder for women to get, etc., pretending that leaving behind those who do not have the same rights and opportunities as you do is “equal treatment” is pretty goddamn twisted. We live in a patriarchy and you know it. Otherwise, you’d never think a ridiculous stunt like “MGTOW” would actually make a difference in the world.
Thanks to the efforts of feminism, the scale that was previously heavily weighed in men’s favor is starting to shift in a more equal direction. This makes entitled assholes extemely angry, and as they are blinded by privilege, they genuinely believe that they are in the position they are due to their own efforts and supreme natural abilities instead of luck. That’s why they think depriving the fallen world of their shining presence is somehow a tremendous blow to the people who fail to “know their place”.
Coincidentally, this is also how libertarians and other free market capitalists think. No wonder “MGTOW” has the same ring to it as “going Galt”.
*Note: I happen to be a dirty-ass hippie commie, so I don’t think anyone should be “left to fend for themselves”. That sounds like an awful model for a society.
Honesty I thought this thread would be proof enough. I’m sure if you scroll up enough you’ll stumble across something to back up what I said. No better reference than to use the words of feminist themselves.
Plus understand that women can do whatever they want. They don’t owe men anything. But that also means that men don’t owe women anything either. Fair is fair after all.
And yes, the patriarchy does exist. But mind you it’s a system that is run by men and designed by men, yet in many ways…. it supports of women? The patriarchy needs to be destroyed so TRUE 50/50 equality can be achieve. How that equality unfolds will be determined by how feminist regard men in the matter. That is if men will even care to negotiate anymore. Personally I’m all for pure 50/50 equility. This way there will be no men or women. Only people jugded by the things they say and do.
Now whether or not mgtow makes a difference in our culture is irrelevant. All that matters Is that it teaches men to accept feminist for who they are. Then present him with a simple question. (Are you willing to deal with the bullshit or not?) Regardless of your answer you can still continue your life as it will become a part of going your own way.
Oh and about your note. People fending for themselves is an awful model for society. Too bad this is the world we already live in. And mind you men have been fending for themselves for quite some time. I don’t see why it’s a problem if women would have to do the same. After we achieve true equility of course.
The also believe that loss of privilege is oppression, not balancing the scales.
Proof of what? Why should we have to do the work of scrolling through all the comments to prove your point (which you never actually stated)?
Citation needed.
By claiming that all feminists are “selfish” and “dark,” you are not accepting us as we are. You are erasing our individuality and assuming that we are all the same. Your claim is actually teaching men to accept feminists as you think they are, based on stereotypes and strawmen.
@unknown traveler:
Blockquote mammoth, no!
Name one way in which men have been “fending for themselves.” No points for naming something that implies help from other men doesn’t count because they aren’t outside the system of “all men.” Otherwise you could say that all humans have been “fending for themselves” and be technically correct, yet completely erase all the benefits that modern civilization brings.
If you are so interested in “true 50/50 equality” where there are no men or women, just people, then why the bloody hell are you so invested in dividing people into categories of gender to make grand proclamations about what one group does or doesn’t owe another, and how half of your population of people’s true nature is dark and selfish?
It doesn’t match up to reality and you know it. Claiming roughly 3.5 billion people are fundamentally different (in terms of personality) from the other roughly 3.5 billion people is bullshit rhetoric of the highest degree. It shoots you in the foot when you then blather about how much you love equality; it’s like if a KKK member talked about 50/50 equality between white folks and black folks, you know already that they’re essentially lying about their beliefs.
Whut? That… isn’t even remotely true. No one in society totally and entirely ‘fends for themselves’. Even hunter/gatherer societies are SOCIETIES where people cooperate and share resources.
I mean, look around you. Just the literal room you are in. Did you build everything you see by hand, all by yourself? Did you gather the resources and refine them? No?
Then ‘fend for yourself’ actually means what? Earn your own money and buy the things yourself? Is that it? Because that isn’t some kind of rugged individualism at all.
In our society for the past century or so that looked like men working and women staying at home taking care of the household and kids (a pattern that was never as pervasive as it seemed and is even less so now, but I digress). That isn’t ‘fending for yourself’ at all when you have what is basically a full time unpaid employee at home who does all of the cooking, cleaning and child care while you go work for someone else outside of the home.
Does ‘fend for yourself’ = ‘work and make money’ in your mind? If it does, then I have a news flash for you; women work (have always worked), even outside of the home, especially in the working and middle class. If not, then what are you talking about?
@kirby Anyone who claims “men and women are equal but different” is full of shit. With the exception of people who are just parroting what they’ve heard without knowing better, 99.9% of those who espouse such a belief inevitably follow it up with how mean and women should be treated differently, or have different social rules (otherwise known as double standards). Also inevitably, it’s the women who wind up with the short straw in these manifestos.
And ugh, that ‘male appreciation’ crap. “I don’t understand why you don’t like it when I objectify and dehumanize you! I said that I like your tits and would like to fuck you whether you want me to or not! It’s a compliment!”
*vomits*
I don’t have a friend named Katie, feminist or not.
I have a feminist friend named Steve. He bought me a chibi Vegeta figurine for my birthday to let me know he appreciates me* and our friendship. He’s awesome.
* definitely not the ‘male appreciation’ from above.
Oh, aren’t you a darling, acting like you have evidence while providing none. Next, you’ll start threatening to screencap us. Newsflash: “I have proof/screencaps/whatever” only works if you can actually, you know, provide them. So far, you’ve continued to disappoint. If you’ve found something a feminist has said here unreasonable, go on and cite. We’ll wait.
But do consider that “here’s something a feminist said that made me feel bad” does not translate to “proof that feminists are objectively hateful”, or you’ll just end up making yourself look even sillier than before. You have to understand why something is objectively hateful, not just go with your gut feeling and limited life experience.
Who said that they do? Point me to the feminist who said that individual men owe individual women anything beyond the standard level of respect and common decency that men are already giving other men. That is, treating them like other human beings and not sex objects, unpaid childcare providers and maids (and arguing that’s “female privilege”).
If you seriously buy the MRA’s deliberate misconception about feminists wanting “all the rights and none of the responsibilities” for women, then boy, do I have a bridge to sell you for a steal.
This here is a thing of beauty. I am baffled how internally conflicting ideas like “if men care to negotiate anymore” and “there will be no men or women” could ever fit into a single worldview. “Full equality! No gender bias! Perfect world for everyone! That is, if the dudes are okay with that of course.”
Bub, if you believe feminists “owe” men anything in order to “deserve” either equality or slavery (at least, that’s what I’m getting from your blather), you do believe that men should get the final word. You do believe that men should ultimately make the decision for or against equality. That’s not equality, that’s patriarchy in action.
Also, please give proof that the patriarchy “benefits” women, instead of just providing the most basic, extremely flawed survival kit for women to navigate in a world run by men. Beneficial sexism is a concept, look it up. It’s not about “protecting” or “benefitting” women, it’s about developing Stockholm Syndrome, but for the whole female gender.
I seriously can’t make heads or tails of this. It doesn’t matter if MGTOW makes a difference, as long as it makes a difference? Tell men to misinterpret feminists and accept that misinterpretation as fact? Ask yourself a tough but really obviously loaded question that ultimately means absolutely nothing? Going your way is everything and vice versa? What the hell are you trying to say here?
What a marvellous mishmash. “We shouldn’t try to change an awful model for society because this is how it’s always been! Nothing has ever changed for the better, so we shouldn’t even try!”
After that appeal to tradition/nature/whatever, it then turns into yet another rant in the vein of “Women have never been working! We hunted the mammoth to feed you! In a truly equal society, women would starve because they’re useless at everything and just eat bonbons all day! Big Daddy Government! Go Galt! Arglebargle!”
I also see that you started focusing on my points the moment I revealed that I identify as a man, despite my post not being nearly as elaborately written as those of many others here. Gosh, you misogynistic trolls are so utterly predictable.
@sunnysombrera: Well said. Just yesterday, I tried explaining that exact premise to yet another right-winger who babbled on about “special benefits” for disabled people. I think I became slightly dumber after that conversation, so excuse me if there are typos in my post.
Katie was my good friend from college. We haven’t spoken in awhile. How’s she doing, unknown traveler? How’s her wife?
I really don’t understand your claim that feminists want men to sacrifice for them. Do you know anything about the history of feminism? One of the major things feminists fought for is the ability to go to college, have careers and earn and control our money and be able to get credit without a husband’s permission so we can do things like own our own homes or start our own businesses. If you’re a MGTOW, that should delight you. We don’t want to have to depend on you financially. But because we’re demanding equality rather than asking for it meekly and presenting you with a sandwich and a blow job to reward you for treating us with basic human decency, you’re all cranky about us.
And what’s this nonsense about men always fending for themselves? Do you use public roads,libraries or parks? Do you use municipal water and flush the toilet? Did you ever attend a public school or take financial aid for school? Have you or your parents (you write in a young and immature manner so I’m not convinced you’ve lived on your own yet) ever used any government help of any kind? Not knowing what country you’re from, I can’t narrow it down to specific programs. Do you enjoy breathing air that isn’t poisonous and eating food that’s safe because of environmental and food safety regulation? Have you called emergency services or would you if you needed them? Even if I’m wrong about you being very young and still a dependent of your parents, you’ve never fended for yourself. Nobody has.
@ Anarchonist – might I say that I have always enjoyed your posts? If you have a newsletter, I would very much like to subscribe to it.
I have a feeling he means “men have fended for themselves” in a collective way? As in, “men fought the tigers and hunted mammoth and died building civilisation while women sat at home raising kids, which is totes not real work because motherhood comes naturally to them.” Yes/no?
@Anarchonist:
Ooh, does that mean he’ll start paying attention to me once I reveal I’m a man as well? Let’s find out!
@sunnysombrera:
I’m positive that’s what he means. MRAs can only really ever argue about collective responsibilities and accomplishments, because when has any of them individually ever actually done anything productive or useful (on a society-wide scale, anyway)?
Plus, if they want to argue that rights are awarded based on contribution, then they can be assured that “they” have already earned their rights by virtue of another’s work. They can avoid the responsibility (as they see it) while claiming the rewards.
That’s the thing that ALWAYS, ALWAYS sticks in my craw with “Meritocracy” bigots. They want people to be judged individually… by the perceived capabilities of other people who happen to share their gender, skin color, etc. The average mouth-breathing sexist wants to be seen as more valuable by latching themselves like parasites to the accomplishments of powerful, intelligent and capable men.
@sunnysombrera
By that logic, fighting tigers, hunting mammoth and building civilisation doesn’t count as real work either because that stuff just comes naturally to men.
These MRA types never follow things through to their logical conclusions. I don’t always agree with feminists either, but they at least generally think things through properly.
You guys are taking all this to extremes. All I said is we should have an equal society were (more specifically) everyone takes responsibility for themselves based off of their own charactor and not gender. This applies to both men and women. Its really not that hard to grasp.
Its funny though. I didn’t say anything about women not working, our society benefiting only women, or traditional ideals were women must serve men, or deciding not to change society. But somehow all this just appeared. And beautifully worded as if those words came from my mouth. Isn’t that sexy?
Now about your notion on equality. It has nothing to do with men getting the last word. It has everything to do with being FAIR and EQUAL between the two sexes. Mind you equility can be achieved multiple ways. One of which is were women and men discuss to an agreement in how they will treat one another. However both men and women have to be willing to negotiate for that to happen. If either party aren’t up for negotiations then only 50/50 equility can be achieved. Which as I stated I’m perfectly fine with. The reality is that just went over your head because you were too busy searching for misogyny. I get that, because I understand how your ideology works. So I’ll give you a pass on that one.
By the way I engaged you anarchonist because you made some good points. This is an interesting to experience because your the first male feminist I spoken to. In truth I usually ignore you guys. But now we’re getting into the more gynocentric talk. I’m not interested in that. It leads to trying to reason with feminist and thats a complete waste of time.
Oh and maybe if we all tried changing corporate America for the benefit of people rather then just women we’d get along a lot nicer. After all, even if feminism prevails corporate America will still be calling the shots.
I could go on to give you your proof but I’m lazy and don’t care enough to do the work. Take that how you will. I’ve spent enough time here and it time to move on.
Shorter totallyobvious: You feeeeemales just aren’t accepting that what I say is profound biotroof without any kind of proof or evidence of any sort, and I can’t really provide any because none exists, so I’m just going to say I’m too lazy to provide any and flounce. LOGIC. COURAGE. MANHOOD. (But you’re cool, manarchonist. because man. brofist!).