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’ll give the flounce a 3/10
The points all come from the hilarity of him using the excuse that you can’t reason with a feminist as cover for his inability to back any of his claims with evidence.
I guess we’ll have to trust in his supreme manlogicking skills and take his word for it.
Two groups of 3.5 billion individuals can’t negotiate. There will never be a “Man/Woman Summit to Negotiate a Gender Ceasefire,” because that would be ridiculous.
We’re all just people, dude. Equality comes when all the people are convinced that all the other people are also equal. I dunno how old you are, but there are people who have lived through a cultural shift so drastic that you wouldn’t even recognize where we came from. That process is going to continue as gender roles are continuously challenged, rights are won, and people simply stop thinking about the world in terms of girls vs boys.
Congrats, you’re getting the briefest glimpse of kyriarchy, where gender is only one axis in a variety of various axes that privilege operates. In particular, economic/class power. Yet somehow you still don’t grok that work towards eliminating inequality along any axis is useful.
Well aren’t we condescending today. Let me know when you’ve worked out the difference between “FAIR and EQUAL equality” vs “50/50 equility”. Or when you’ve learned how to actually quote people when telling them what they’ve said.
Yeah, that was a weak flounce. A point for flat-out admitting to laziness, but that’s all.
Unknown traveler:
Out of morbid curiosity, what needs to be negotiated, exactly? Examples would be awesome.
That question out of the way, to everybody else in the previous page giving wonderful feminist reasoning for the problems of toxic masculinity, and how that is the way feminists are trying to get rid of men’s problems that MRAs always list, I agree 100%, but it’s a bit futile to tell them that. That’s really not the solution they want. Toxic masculinity (i doubt they’d call it toxic) isn’t something they view as bad and to them the problems men are facing are due to feminism.
When the issue of men facing abuse from women(and when they bring it up, it’s always women… I don’t think I’ve heard of them addressing a man facing abuse from a male partner), our solution is more encouragement for men to seek shelter and support, and fight the notion that a man being abused is shameful and makes him lesser. On the other hand, their solution is to not allow the female abusers hide behind the idea that men can’t hit women and allowencourage men to put them in their place like they feel men should be able to. (Look at Elam’s “satire”)
They don’t want to get rid of an uneven percentage of women receiving alimony in a divorce by getting rid of the notion that it’s a woman’s job to stay home while the man works and create a society where there’s no social pressure determining who stays at home in a household where the couple decides (and is able) to utilize a single income, thus limiting work experience that theoretically could be needed if something doesn’t work out later (hopefully not). They still want the man to be the bread winner while the wife stays at home. And they definitely don’t want the woman to be able to choose to divorce the man. Also, if the man decides he wants to divorce the woman, he wants a clean break. And apparently get to decide if he keeps the kids or not.
The one thing I’ve never ever quite understood, and I see it SOOOO much, is the idea that feminists want women to have men’s rights but not men’s responsibilities. What exactly are they saying here? I don’t think they’re only talking about the draft and military service (I don’t think many (any?) feminists want the draft to single out only one gender, and feminists have been fighting tooth and nail to get women into the service…), it seems to be a much broader thing… but I can never find examples of what they mean. Maybe my womanly brain can’t fathom the manly mansponsibilities they have that I don’t (and as a feminist, don’t want (apparently)).
Hrm… that was kinda longer than I intended.
I want to know about this best friend Katie who’s never introduced herself to me. I’m sure she’s very nice, but I’ll never know if she doesn’t speak up.
(Perhaps she doesn’t exist in the Southern Hemisphere. That’s totally unfair to leave all us OZ and NZ feminists out of it. We need friends too.)
I propose we make “our feminist friend Katie” a meme right up there with scented candles and living DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH.
My feminist friend Katie thinks this is a great idea.
My feminist friend Katie agrees with fromafar2013.
Oooh, remember that part you mentioned earlier about being able to scroll up and see what feminists wrote? It works on you too.
Let’s see here…
“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”
Now granted, we’re pretty good at reading between the lines, and understand what you MEAN and not just what you literally say, especially in relation to how these ideas work in the real world.
Now, on the other hand, if you didn’t mean what it looks like you mean, maybe you should clarify?
Now you’re just being gross and weird.
Asking for clear rational arguments is misandry!!
Yes, because that’s how the American Revolution worked, and the abolishing of slavery, and suffrage and civil rights! Everyone sat down and talked things through calmly and negotiated a happy middle and everyone was happy forever after! /sarcasm
-_-;
Isn’t this an example of a fallacy? … ah, yes. Here it is.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground
@unknown traveler:
Since the fine people here have already expertly vivisected your weak little “you’re all so mean!” post, I’ll just address a few small things that still bother me.
How are you coming up with these numbers? Seriously? What the heck is “50/50 equility [sic]”? What does it mean? Previously, you said that 50/50 equality is TRUE equality; why are you now saying it’s “only” 50/50 equality?
You say there are multiple ways to achieve equality, yet you only present us with one. Have you given this any thought at all, or are you making stuff up as you go along?
Also, why are FAIR and EQUAL in all caps? Is there doubt? Did you seriously not learn anything, still parroting MRA bullshit about feminist wanting to “rule men”? In case it’s still unclear to you, men’s rights are in no danger. They never have been. Claiming otherwise is sheer ridiculousness. Others getting the same rights as you is not taking away from your rights. Losing privilege is not the same as losing rights.
That is what the MGTOW claim, so I get why you would be confused. The MGTOW is a pure revenge fantasy against all the terrible, immoral feeeeemales that don’t even exist outside of a MGTOW’s fevered imagination. Could you do yourself a favor and just listen to (don’t interrupt, don’t rationalize with biotroofs, just listen to) and try to empathize with actual, living and breathing human women? You’ll find that men and women are really not that different. Your “female nature” claim really does not hold water in the real world where women are more than stereotypes made up by men who hate them. You might actually learn something by stepping outside your mental bubble once in a while.
Or don’t. In that case, just keep going your own way. That might actually be better for everyone involved.
This point is extra hilarious,keeping in mind the next one:
No, what you said was
It doesn’t take “searching” to see that in your opinion 1) how feminists regard men will determine what happens after the dismantling of patriarchy, and 2) men won’t want to negotiate “anymore” (giving a vague time limit), since they’re apparently fed up with feminism or something, and won’t want to agree to the terms of equality because feminists were so meeeeaaan to them before.
In other words: “You feminists should really be nicer to us men, or something scary and ominous-sounding will happen and it’ll all be your own fault.” Spoken like an abuser.
You should know better than to come to a feminist blog and not expect us to be able to read. We’re not here just for the cat videos, you know. Adorable as they are.
Yeah, I made some good points. With my dick. That’s what we men do; we think with our dicks, and that’s why women can never outthink us, since they don’t have dicks. Trans people? Never heard of them, and they probably have cooties. Anyway, did I mention I have a dick? /sarcasm
I have no idea what you mean by “gynocentric talk”. Feminism? Then why come to a feminist blog in the first place, silly? And what, exactly, do you expect to talk about with a feminist ally, if not feminism? To me, your comment just sounds like “Yeah, we can talk since you’re a dude like me, but let’s not talk about feminism and equality because that’s totally bogus, bro. Anyway, screw them b***hes, amirite? High five!” That’s not how it works, “bro”.
Nice going convincing us that you are totally not a misogynist by completely ignoring all the women who have replied to you in favor of a dude who replied to you, though.
*Sigh* But it’s people, not some weird un-people who benefit from “corporate America” (I’m not American in any sense of the word, so I’ll refrain from using that phrase from now on). Discussing “people” in the general sense as being oppressed is silly if there are no lizard-people or aliens doing the oppressing (there aren’t, just in case that needed to be spelled out). That’s why fighting for some vague “equality for all” is meaningless; there has to be an oppressive and an oppressed group, otherwise it doesn’t work. “People” is too broad a group, as it includes both the oppressors and the oppressed. That is why it’s pointless to discuss equality through some myopic lens of “egalitarianism”.
Those who benefit the most from the system are rich white men. Feminism is partly about examining why that is, and how we could change that for the good of all of us. Feminism is about changing the system. It’s about challenging power structures. It’s about social justice and dismantling privilege in all its forms. Why won’t you learn about feminism before criticizing it for something anti-feminists claim it represents?
———————
rant:
For the record, I agree with you on corporations. My ideology (anarcha-feminism) seeks the complete dismantling of all hierarchies and power structures, politically, economically and socially. Basically, I believe that power (and the craving thereof) is the root of all evil. Corporate rule is just a new version of the same old nobility system. On this we agree.
However, I’ve also had it up to here with white dude revolutionaries claiming that classism is the most important, indeed, the only axis of privilege and oppression that needs to be considered. In many ways, I’d say it’s probably the least important. Politics and economics are ultimately much less important than social change.
Revolutions come and go, but in order for all oppression to cease and true equality to be achieved, people need to let go of the false Hobbesian belief that humans can’t peacefully cooperate with each other, that we are doomed to fight amongst each other unless we surrender ourselves to supreme, “more worthy” people. “More worthy” being, of course, powerful and privileged people. Similarly, privileged people need to let go of the idea that they are “more worthy” by virtue of being born a certain sex, race, or other hierarchical position.
As our society is now, a sudden anarchist revolution would not work. Too many people embrace harmful beliefs about social hierarchy, and we would end up with just another dog-eat-dog system where people seek to rule over each other, probably following the same patriarchal, racist notions as before. The way I see it, once the traditional view of humans as selfish, violent and power-hungry creatures disappears, then we can talk about true political change.
Got it? Good. Now for the interesting part: Since the default human in our patriarchal system is a man, not a woman (who is indeed actively taught to be a victim), it is first and foremost the traditional view of masculinity, the toxic kind, that needs to go away in order for its harmful ideology to fade from society.
That is why I, as an anarchist, support feminism with all my heart. Because society is us, and society won’t change until we do.
Sure, it’s a slow process. You and I may not live to see full equality, but that’s not the point. Any change away from a hierarchical system towards equality on any axis is a small victory. We all have to do our share to make the world a better place not only for us, but for future generations as well. Any change, however insignificant it may seem may still have helped one person, and even one person matters. Even one more little girl understanding that she’s just as capable as any boy, even one more black child realizing the color of their skin does not make them lesser, even one more little boy being taught that girly does not equal bad, even one more person getting how much sexism, racism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry harm humanity as a whole, and it has all been worth it. For the sake of saving one world, and potentially more as they pay it forward. If you can’t see the beauty in that, then I don’t know what to tell you.
/rant
——————–
Well, what do you know! Finally a sentiment we can all fully agree on!
I’ll also have to agree with fromafar2013 that including the completely unnecessary “sexy” in your post just makes you look weird and a tad creepy. Please don’t do that.
@grumpyoldnurse: Aww, shucks, thanks a lot! No, I haven’t got a newsletter (you mean private people have them too? I didn’t know that). I’ve thought about starting a blog, but I’m just too technically inept for that.
@kirbywarp: Now you jinxed it! Making a misogynist aware of their misogyny results in them trying ever harder to hide their misogyny.
—————————
Okay, after this ordeal, I’m going to go cry into a pillow since I’m getting pretty overwhelmed by feelings of both hope for humanity and despair over all the people still not only not getting it, but actively fighting to keep others from getting it as well.
Holy macaroni, that’s one long teal deer.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p209/mommawookiee/tldr.jpg
QFT
@ Anarchonist – if you do start a blog, I would read it, no matter how bad the format was.
One aside; I read this
as a subconscious tell that our travelling friend thinks women aren’t people. If he actually believed that women are a subset of the group ‘people’ wouldn’t he have said “all people” instead? It is, however, possible that I am reading too much into this and that English is not his first language.
Then.
Why.
The.
Fuck.
Are.
You.
Here?
Seriously. “Feminists can’t be reasoned with, so I’m going to go to a feminist blog and attempt to talk to the feminists there about my views on the world that obviously clash with everything they stand for and then I’m going to marvel at the fact that they don’t agree with me!”
How self-defeating can you get with your self-fulfilling prophecies? You walked in here with the idea in your head that we can’t be reasoned with, then you shove a bunch of macho pro-patriarchy-but-not-really-I’m-totally-for-equality-u-guiz bullshit in our faces, then prance about like you won? What a prat.
Stick the flounce.
What an amazing coincidence, that the only person on this thread who identified himself as male just happened to be the only one who made “good points” and was worth talking to like a human being instead of scolding and ranting at!
What are the odds?
Translation: “I don’t like what feminists say, but I’m not all that smart and don’t know how to refute them, and I’m afraid to directly engage with them in case they change my mind or make me look foolish and cost me precious Man Points. So I’ll arrogantly dismiss and ignore them, to maintain the illusion that I am superior.”
You’ve admitted you’re too lazy to back up your asspinions with proof, and now you’ve admitted you’re too cowardly to acknowledge women, ON A FEMINIST BLOG FILLED WITH WOMEN. Dude, that’s incredibly rude, like going to a party and talking to one person loudly about all the guests right in front of their faces, as if they’re not even there.
Come back when you’ve learned some manners.
Oh wow. If this thread keeps getting necroed, I’m going to have to start calling this the MGTOW zombie thread. Just like the MGTOW, it keeps coming back to tell you that it’s leaving, and it kind do stinks with rot.
Per usual, each one of the them comes in saying:
1. Happy MGTOW, you ladies will be sorry.
2. Makes broad pronouncements about feminist/women/social dynamics without providing examples or links that leads to credible evidence that support said claims.
I give unknown traveler’s flounce a 2/10.
I can’t say that I have anything to add. All of you pretty much covered it.
This thread is like a porch light bulb to the moths of the MGTOW movement. It attracts swarms of them. OOOH LOOK A SHINY LIGHT TO HURL MYSELF ANGRILY AT. They flutter around and around and around and around and around, scorch their wings, then reel blindly back into the darkness.
Meanwhile, the light shines on.
Actually, scratch that. Moths are adorable. Except for the kind that eat your sweaters.
Yeah, don’t dis moths! The magnificent, majestic mangina is a moth!
Omg, just catching up on this ubernecro… I laughed so hard I snorted at SSJ’s assumption that men go check out the noise in a house. Yeah, if you base all your relationship info on shitty movies.
In my house, I’m the one who checks out the noise. Because I’m totally a badass, you guys.
Or mostly because I have a career in reducing drug use and reoffending rates and so I deal with “convicts” and “addicts” daily and know what I’m doing, whereas Mr. Luna works in a bank and would freak out.
Or misandry or something.
I’m interested
A real comment about the glossary. Maybe there should be the addition of SJW? It took me a while to figure out what that was and why it was bad.
And by bad, I mean why MRAs and GGers considered it bad.
I was wondering what are your thoughts on this?
Does Mysandry still not exist? What do the male feminist have to say about this, are they ok with this philosphy?
http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems