Honey, I’m home from the Manosphere! Hope my food is cooked and you’re prepared for a black eye!
And thus sums up the thesis of “The New Misogyny,” a vacuous piece (of steaming shit) on the Manosphere, written by Jeff Moniker of the Daily Kos. A vapid, cursory glance at a little slice of cold-hard reality, “The New Misogyny” is barely worthy of a rebuttal–but considering the readership of Daily Kos, I’ll pay Moniker’s story its due by shredding it to pieces. And by giving you a glance at the sad state of the blue pill world, hopefully this slander will achieve the purpose it’s so busy railing against.
There has been a growing internet movement of “men’s rights” activists, Pick up artists and others who call themselves “the Manosphere.” While it’s still small it has changed the way hateful ideologies function.
We’re off to a nice start. No surprise “men’s rights” is something that has to be included in quotation marks. But I am admittedly curious as to how we have “changed the way” hateful ideologies function! Perhaps the Jacobins could have learned something from us…
It’s no secret that for the past few years there has been a dramatic assault over women’s rights, re-opening questions that were thought to be settled for decades. From contraception to abortion to basic protection from rape, (seen in Congress’s failure to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act), it seems that centuries of struggle have been re-opened.
The “dramatic assault” on women’s rights the past few years has boiled down to common-sense opposition to bad legislation. Contraception and abortions being funded by taxpayer money, with forced cooperation from religious organizations is wrong. VAWA is discriminatory by its very nature. The only thing being assaulted these days is the Constitution.
However beneath the public debates over contraception and abortion there has been a different kind of struggle over gender. In the underbelly of the internet, what can only be called a new misogyny has emerged but hasn’t received the kind of attention it needs.
Careful with your suggestions, Jeffy. Too many people see the sensible, reality-based conclusions of the Manosphere, your hippy dippy SWPL edifice will come crashing down sooner rather than later…
The community that characterize this misogyny call themselves the Manosphere, an interlocking network of blogs for “men’s rights” activists (MRAs), pickup artists (PUA) and some online gamers. Unlike the mainstream conservative conceptions of women, the views espoused by the manosphere harkens back to what can only be described as a proto-fascist, and surprisingly, is becoming more popular on the internet.
Mussolini was the first Manosphere blogger. True story.
MRAs often favor policies as regressive as re-legalizing martial rape, preventing women from going into higher education, and with some going so far as to want to abolish female suffrage entirely (yes really) lest it interfere with women’s societal priorities as baby makers.
It should be noted now that Moniker never quotes a single Manosphere blogger in the entire piece. He can’t even be bothered to quote them out of context, or provide a context for any accusations. He’s just going to tell you what we proto-fascists all believe. By the way, Heartiste’s observation that “the worst thing to happen to America was women’s suffrage,” was just that–an observation. There are no calls for stripping such rights away; the main point of most of the red-pill writers is that we as men should take advantage of the situation we happen to find ourselves in. The Manosphere is much too hedonistic and apolitical (as Moniker admits in the next paragraph) to get around to “abolishing” anything. Why? More self-entitled, independent & amoral sluts=more sex.
What’s odd isn’t just the intensity of the regression but also the completely apolitical nature of it. Unlike conservatives who view women’s roles in a context of a broader political project, MRAs only interest is in women themselves, with little regard to politics insofar as it doesn’t affect men’s power over men [women?]. Indeed some of the hot button issues regarding women in American politics, from abortion to birth control are generally superfluous if not outright ignored by the community.
This seems to take the air out of the whole “dramatic assault” on women’s rights argument. “Those FASCISTS aren’t out to take away your rights or anything, they just have really baaaaaad beliefs!”
Originally it started off as a small movement of “men’s rights” activists in the late 1970s. However it didn’t grow until the development of the pickup community in the 80s and 90s. Much like the MRAs, PUAs base their practice on many of the same views, often relying on the dubious work of evolutionary psychology (good critiques of which can be found here and here). After pickup was popularized in the 2000s with the VH1 show The Pick Up Artist and the New York Times bestseller The Game, the communities melded with the MRAs to create the manosphere.
Ooh, two links “criticique”-ing evolutionary psychology! Guess that makes the score 200-2. Search the Chateau for all the science behind game. To say the work of evopsy is “dubious” is just as dubious. Personally, such proofs are not my main focus, as the red-pill truths are obvious to anyone willing to truly observe this culture we live in.
As an aside, I decree that Jeff Moniker’s “profession” shall henceforth only be referred to as “writer.” And you have to overtly do the quote fingers every time you say it out loud.
Recently it seems that the recession has been a major boon to their ideology. Because times are tough on both sexes, but especially hard on positions of employment typically held by men, it has been fuel for gender resentment. As the New York Times points out in an article titled The Myth of Male Decline:
“What we are seeing is a convergence in economic fortunes, not female ascendance. Between 2010 and 2011, men and women working full time year-round both experienced a 2.5 percent decline in income. Men suffered roughly 80 percent of the job losses at the beginning of the 2007 recession.”
First, this statistic is comparing income decline and job loss, two different things. And second, to the NYT, 2007 wasn’t that long ago! 80%?! Good lord! I didn’t even know that. Add a point to the cause!
It also seems the other factor growing this community, especially the pickup community, has been a lack of sex. As Sandy Hingston points out in an examination of twenty-something men, the situation is grim. The economy has made it so that “[y]oung men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home.” Indeed according to the Centers for Disease Control, even virginity has increased.
No argument here. It is grim. So men have a choice, they can keep living in the Matrix and doing the same crap they’ve been doing, or they can unplug, see the world for what it is, and improve their time on this planet.
In a way, the manosphere acts like a kind of self-help group for these kinds of problems with a clear sales pitch: “Can’t get a job? Can’t get laid? Still live with your mom? No fear, we’ll teach you how to pick up women and become a true Alpha Male. It’s those feminists trying to keep you down.”
Until Manginaker can deconstruct the techniques used to pick up women and develop alpha personas, instead of relying on sarcastically brushing aside the techniques as a hollow sales pitch, he has no argument.
It’s worth examining the pickup techniques themselves. On first examination, the techniques do seem to be effective. As one German study found, in a small group of 17 men and 23 women, men were able to pick up almost four times as many phone numbers after the training.
Failing so far…
However it came with a catch, in the same study, both men and women said they felt considerably guilt for using the techniques, a reportedly common problem for people in the PUA community.
Ah, guilt. One of the five roadblocks to game. But probably the least worrisome. Think about it this way: if I was to give the average man, one of those guys who “can’t get a job,” “can’t get laid,” and/or “still lives with mom,” a magic potion that allowed him to solve those problems, but the only side effect would be a little guilt, do you think he would take it?
Guilt can be overcome. Guilt does not HAVE to come from “running game.” There are basic things every man can do, from developing better body language to learning to shed his insecurities, that he can and should do to attract women. That should not induce guilt. Anyone who really gets the message of the Manosphere won’t be overly affected by guilt. In fact, the Manosphere helped me place Game (which I knew about for about a year before learning of this world of blogs) into a context that made game much more operable for me.
Also, this is based off one German study. Nicht schlüssig, Geoffrey!
A larger study by the University of Kansas came with even more worrying findings. Using 850 national volunteers it was found that pickup techniques have a selection bias: they work best with men and women who already have sexist attitudes. As it observed, hostilely sexist men (men who hate women) and benevolently sexist women (women who idolize men) were the most likely to benefit from pickup techniques. That is, the techniques create a self-fulfilling prophecy which confirms the sexist biases of the PUAs.
We wouldn’t want a benevolently sexist (aka “feminine”) woman, now would we?! Sounds like an additional point to our “sales pitch.”
I will call bullshit on this study, though, based solely on observation. Game works just fine on women who don’t “idolize” men, probably more so. They. eat. it. up.
On the one hand we might ask why we should even care. While it might have grown, the new misogyny is still a marginal force.
Moniker hasn’t been able to get the term “marginal force” out of his head ever since his first girlfriend dubbed him that.
To put it simply, it is successful because people don’t care; seeing it as an immature self-help tool and not as a full-blown ideology. Most other hateful ideologies operate semi-publicly: pointing to a scapegoat and then recruiting people to attack it. This does the opposite; it appears as neutral training and instills a scapegoat through its methods.
Wait, we’re already wrapping up? Where was the supporting evidence behind the “hateful ideology” accusation? This little drivel-filled essay would get an INCOMPLETE stamp in a freshman English class.
Imagine for instance if people gave supposedly non-ideological training to “Avoid Money Manipulation” (AMM). As part of AMM training it gives characteristics of people that will try to manipulate your money, and that these people just happened to be Jewish; you see it’s not anti-Semitic, it’s because of evolutionary-you get the idea.
Aaaaand we’ve come to the reductio ad Hitlerium portion of the show. Really, Jeff? Why don’t you look in the mirror before “giving the characteristics of people” you disagree with?
Indeed we may be witnessing a shift for hateful ideologies; no longer able to function publicly, they now rely on supposedly neutral, private training to instill and spread their values.
This in a sense has always been the refuge of hate groups, to keep their mode of operation secret, even if this now means making their beliefs a semi-secret as well. Thus, the best we have to confront these kinds of attitudes is to make them known to the public.
The first reaction the mangina has to the cold truths of reality is to dub it “hateful.” So he makes it his mission to expose this dangerous ideology, which must be confronted. And how exactly? I get the feeling the solution to that has a lot more to do with “proto-fascism” than do red-pill beliefs, centered around the idea that “love is the only thing in this world that isn’t bullshit.”