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.
“don’t be angry at a true mgtow”
Thing is, definitionally we’ve never seen a true mgtow. If they were mgtow, they’d be going their own way and they *would not be here.* By definition.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I actually did get a 4.0 in my logic class. Fun times, fun times. Sometimes I used to take the book home and do exercises just for fun; it was always so relaxing. Like crossword puzzles for ideas.
I popped onto Warcorpse666 channel and there’s a video called “Warcorpse666 versus TheAmazingAtheist” and I can’t help but chuckle.
I also noticed that the people with 666 in their name are also atheists, so atheists with 666 in their name are also assholes. (Oooooh! Scary! The number of the beast! Total shock value! Take that Christians! …N-no, I’m not 14…)
There’s good evidence that the number of the beast is actually 616.
Woah, Mark got scary quickly. Still catching up with this thread.
(Also, I really liked Sarah McLachlan’s Mirrorball live album. And I still like Muse; haven’t heard their live stuff and now I know to watch for it.)
“She is passive because one or more of the game developers had a misogynist idea about how female characters ought to act. The backstory is just after-the-fact excuse-making for the original misogynist decision.”
While I completely agree with what you’re saying, I would hate to make a blanket recommendation to get rid of all passive women, as they do exist. (Which I do not think you are doing here, by the way, but some people DO think that would somehow solve things.)
In an ideal feminist world there would be fewer of them, since we would be encouraged to be how we are rather than following rigid gender roles, but some people (male and female) are genuinely passive people.
I wish there was more of a variety of people in video games, especially women, who obviously have it the worst, but men too–I know a few gentle-hearted, passive men who would never be included as characters in most AAA games’ stew of toxic masculinity. … another example of misogyny/patriarchy sucking for everybody, I guess.
TL;DR version: I want more variety in women characters (and also men).
See also: 420, 69, 66642069.
Slow posting. In response to numbers in usernames that signify assholes. =P
@PoM:
Mehta’s Youtube stuff is a safe space, so far as I can judge (being a white male.) His blog is a little murkier, but that’s because he’s been wading through the internal politics of the atheist movement and has been trying to be a moderate, which means that he’s been saying things that have outraged ideological purists like ourselves. There are very few atheist bloggers whose 2012-2013 archives don’t have some ugly things in them.
That said, I understand if you don’t like the guy. A lot of people don’t, for various reasons. I mention him only because his Youtube content is normally pretty good.
Instances of stereotypes in media aren’t, individually, problems. When you have an overwhelming wall of stereotypes with only a few instances of non-stereotyped characterization, it’s a problem. The only way to criticize the wall is the criticize the individual instances that comprise it.
This was less than a month ago.
@PoM:
Was it? Ignore what I said then. I know Mehta has been trying to get the SJWs and MRAs to play nice together in order to keep us unified in the cause of secularism, but to write a thing like that in 2015 smacks of a straightforward refusal to admit one was wrong.
Off-topic, thanks for the advice you gave me about a week ago for making ciabatta. It came out deliciously. I also wrote something in another thread but didn’t know if you saw it.
It’s one of his May 21 entries on his Patheos blog. I won’t link to it but you should be able to find it easily enough.
Yeah, no. That’s pretty unambiguous and 100% bullshit.
Congrats on the ciabatta! I can’t take credit for it, though. I hadn’t even heard of the stuff before you brought it up in that thread.
“The only way to criticize the wall is the criticize the individual instances that comprise it.”
Kinda, but I usually like to focus more on the wall than the individual instances. Then again, that approach hasn’t worked for Anita Sarkeesian, who still gets the same amount of crap from misogynists anyway.
@Jarnsaxa
The best way to take down a wall is to pull the bricks one by one.
Nah, in all seriousness, the best way to show how bad and widespread that stupid sexist tropes are to point out every instance of it. A sweeping generalization about how many characters are like this way won’t be as effective as pointing out several dozen of the same characterization in many different bodies of work. It helps people see a pattern that just saying the pattern exist wouldn’t do.
@PoM:
Yeah, that’s pretty straight-up unapologetic whitewashing. Having read the article it comes across as being written for some fairly cynical and tactical reasons, which is a shame. I’m disappointed in Mehta.
@the other EJ
I don’t agree. Absent any explicit explanation as to his motives, it comes across to me that he just idolizes Richard Dawkins, and is privileged to not have to care about the stupid things Dawkins has said. So he doesn’t care, and has rationalized for himself reasons why he shouldn’t have to care. That’s kind of a shitty attitude for him to take, especially given that he’s an atheist.
Dawkins has done some really important work for both the sciences and for atheism, but only a person who doesn’t have to care about sexual harassment or pedophilia – because it doesn’t affect him personally – could possibly rationalize Dawkins’ statements by saying he’s just a poor, clumsy dear who can’t English gud and/or is confused by the Internet.
Yep. But again, I start with the pattern and then show multiple examples, like Anita did. And I do get the same reactions she gets.
@PoM:
I have a certain respect for Mehta as a political operator. I suspect he knows exactly what sort of person Dawkins is, and has weighed up whether he’s a net asset or a net liability and has decided that throwing women and people of colour under the bus is a better move than alienating the hordes who worship Dawkins. This is why I say that it strikes me as cynical and tactical.
Absent any explicit explanation as to his motives, I think you’re right and we’re both just guessing here. I don’t see anything in your reading of the situation which I think is impossible.
Ok, so her lack of active role in the story is the problem, I see. All she does is receive a letter about how the calamity happens and leaves the bastion to find out the truth. And now that I checked out the wiki, they play the whole ‘zia is maybe kidnapped go find her’ (even though she left of her own free will) so yeah, I think I can see huge problems with her character.
It’s a shame because I actually really identify with her character otherwise. Having grown up around people who see you as an ‘other’ and exclude you for it is an experience I can relate to.
As a way to fix her character, maybe they should have taken the whole “I actually don’t want to go back to before the calamity” and made that more part of the plot. Perhaps she could have prevented The Kid from acquiring the cores?
@Jarnsaxa:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but Sarkeesian was one of the two people who were most important to my early development as a feminist, the other being Jen McCreight. She gets horrible responses, yes, but she’s made at least one convert as well.
@Jarnsaxa
Oh, that’s because people are assholes. It has nothing to do with presenting the information the right way. Start picking part anything someone likes on a large forum like the internet and everyone who disagrees will jump on you.
If anything, it’s proof that you’ve struck a nerve and they don’t like it; you’re slowly opening up their eyes and some people will just resist that and try to shut them tight, but in the back of their minds they will always see that pattern you’ve presented. It’s just how people work, no matter what you’re trying to tell them.
@the other EJ
It’s possible that you’re correct, as well. Tactical cynicism wasn’t my reading, but I tend to people are basically honest about their reactions to things. If Mehta says people are just misreading Dawkins, then I tend to think he really believes they are misreading Dawkins and that Dawkins didn’t really say that Rebecca Watson needs to STFU because of reasons.
That takes considerable rationalization, but not to an implausible degree. I could be wrong.
I don’t agree that it’s because people are assholes. I think multiple examples helps make for a stronger argument, and also decreases the likelihood of someone feeling personally attacked (while definitely not eliminating the possibility).
But that is just my opinion, and that is probably where we just agree to disagree. 🙂
@Jarnsaxa
I feel I missed something here, because I’m saying that multiple examples are a good thing; and the thing is is that no matter what you do, someone is going to feel personally attacked, which isn’t the intention, and be an asshole about it.
@Jarnsaxa
Amen to that.
One example (although he is far from passive) of a male character breaking gender roles is Tidus from FFX who has no problem expressing his feelings. Aaaaaand naturally he’s called a ‘whiny bitch’ and ‘pussy’. One ‘reviewer’ went so far as to replace his name with “Meg Ryan” during cutscenes… Ugh…