On All Male Groupings (IE, the Manosphere)

My view on the Manosphere and how it exemplifies all male groupings in general, from here.

This is an all male group. All all male groups will end up like this sooner or sooner. They will get more and more nutty, violent, aggro and ultra macho, and then the sociopaths will take over. This is the typical progression of any all male grouping. The only thing that tones this crap down is the presence of women. One reason marriage was invented. To prevent groupings like the Manosphere from becoming commonplace.

It’s true that not all all male groups will degenerate in this way, but it’s a common pattern. And what sort of all male group is this anyway? Professors of Romance Linguistics? Lepidopterists? Male feminists? That matters too.

The worst all male or mostly male groups of them all are going to be those that exemplify the traditional traits of masculinity and disparage women, two things that go hand in hand. The Manosphere is all about misogyny, being male, being masculine, being a hardass, etc. It celebrates traditional maleness and masculinity to the point where it nearly fetishizes it. Furthermore, it’s full of aggression and rage towards all sorts of things, mostly towards women, but also just in general.

We are starting to see more and more types in the Manosphere flirting with fascism or openly promoting it, quoting Nietzsche, bragging about how they beat women, hit them, slap them or treat them like shit, how many women they fuck and how they are sexual sadists in bed and probably sadists outside of bed.

I am seeing more and more survivalists, guys who call themselves Doms involved in S/M, B/D with submissive women and guys who collect guns and hate the government.

Of course the White racists (White nationalists) have all climbed aboard, since White nationalism is fascism, and White fascists disparage women as all fascists do along with the races and ethnics they hate.

The disdain for women can also be seen in their disdain for weakness and softness in men, groups deemed weak, soft or in need of help. These men and these groups are de facto “women,” helpless, needy, pitiful, out for your wallet and in need of a quick kick in the pants at best and who knows what at worst.

So we see the increasingly mean and sadistic voices all over the Manosphere, as meanness and sadism is inherent in the male psyche and an important part of masculinity unleashed and untamed by the proximity of women or other civilizing influences.

As I said above, only the presence of women tones all this testosterone poisoning down. Marriage tames the man. This is good not only for the man but for society at large.

A friend told me about when she was at college at UC Berkeley a long time ago. They had some sort of male rooting section which was male only. That section caused all manner of the usual troubles and was the talk of the campus. No one knew quite what to do with them.

Someone got the bright idea of integrating the section. “Let women sit there too,” they said. And so it was done. The problems of the Cal all male rooting section were soon a matter of history. With women in their midst, the boys calmed down soon enough.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Culture, Fascism, Gender Studies, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Racism, White Nationalism, Women

28 responses to “On All Male Groupings (IE, the Manosphere)

  1. Suz

    Wow, really? Read any feminist writings in the last 50 years? No sex-based hate or fascism there, right? I don’t have to tell you what’s going on in the Manosphere, because it’s right in front of your face. Too bad you can’t see it.
    I’ve always wondered if you are a woman writing as a man. Not because you’re “sensitive” or “sympathetic,” but because you’re emotional and irrational. An anecdote-laden attempt to discredit the Manosphere, from a whiner like you, is laughable. Buy a pair of balls, you’re going to need them.

    • Steve

      Maybe you are a man writing as a woman? If you had read any feminist writings in the last 50 years, would you be saying woman are emotional and irrational?

      • Steve

        sorry I misread something. But I still think you might be a man writing as a woman, even more so actually.

        • Suz

          Pretty much everything feminists have written is irrational and appeals only to emotions, not to intelligence.

          No, I’m not a man, I’m a logical woman. If you’re a feminist, you’ve probably never met one. If you’re implying that I think like a man, thank you from the bottom of my heart. That’s high praise indeed.

  2. Victoria

    This is a very interesting post too. Is the Manosphere related to something called “men’s rights movement” or MRM? Because I did run into them and obviously was very offended.

    I wasn’t offended by their criticism of some family laws (where they argued women mostly have the upper hand). What I was disturbed by was the sheer hatred they expressed toward women in general, toward anything considered ‘feminine’ as you noted. The bozo that posted before me sounds a lot like them. Since when is being “emotional,” a) a female trait and b) negative? We all have emotions (except for sociopaths and beasts).

    They also seem to subscribe to these rigid generalizations about gender where, according to them, ALL women are gold-diggers for example. IMO, even if there is a bigger tendency for females to seek financial security in a mate that is due to socialization and it’s going to take a long time to re-socialize every females into rejecting old notions about who the main provider should be and really reflect on whether it’s OK to judge a man by his ability to generate income. Likewise, it will take a long time to re-socialize men into not judging women mainly on their physical attributes/youth while disregarding other traits that maybe actually be more important when it comes to a relationship (empathy, honesty, loyalty, etc).

    Hopefully there will come a time when gender is not so divisive.

    • Yes, the Manosphere is just over the top. They are nuts. And yes, everything you said about them is true. As far as their criticisms of women go, I don’t really care to get into that. Whether it’s true or not, I don’t really want to think about it. Whether women are gold diggers or not, I don’t really care, because I want to get along with women.

    • Thank you so much comrade.

      Actually you can do great with women even with almost no money at all, but you have to be pretty Alpha to pull that off.

  3. Like most ideological groups, the Manosphere makes quite a number of fair points that I believe was right-on-spot and some that I don’t agree with (given my own social observations to the contrary). However, it is the outright misogyny that gets me. Even as a masculinist, I can’t understand hatred for women or the idea that women are inherently inferior and hyper-emotional beings. Its all negative energy there, with anger feeding anger, like a radical feminist group.

    I agree with Lindsay, one doesn’t need a lot of money to get women. I don’t know too much about the alpha thing though. There was a time when I am not sure I was much of an alpha and was pretty much a broke all the time, but I had no problems with women, even very attractive women at that. I think it depends a lot of the type of person one is, his level of attractiveness, his charms and the proximity to women.

    @ Victoria
    Male attraction to physical attributes of women is I think, innate. Humans who have sight are very visually oriented, we judge things heavily on appearance than other factors that require deliberate cognitive effort. Even women put a rating on visual attractiveness. However, what one finds physically attractive is mix of biological, cultural and individual cognitive triggers. Emphathy, loyalty and honesty are qualities that are not easy to judge or pick on, given that our attitudes and behaviours are not as obvious and transparent to others (or ourselves) as looks.

  4. *that I believe is

    not was

  5. “It’s true that not all all male groups will degenerate in this way, but it’s a common pattern. ”

    Like in all trades and profession before women forced themselves in? Seems incredible that they could have got anything done with all that macho stuff going on.

    “Marriage tames the man.”
    Secondly, you seem to be suffering from the Gilder fallacy, like most of the conservatives.


    Even if the MRAs behave like radical feminists, which they are nowhere close to, there will be a wide difference between the outcomes like that of pairing of a confident man and a submissive woman and vice-versa, or an old man with a young woman and vice-versa.

  6. “As I said above, only the presence of women tones all this testosterone poisoning down. Marriage tames the man. This is good not only for the man but for society at large.”

    But then, what if the presence of women isn’t helping at all? What if the presence of women has become similar to their absence? This is the root of the problem. This is what’s leading to the rise of male groups.

  7. Suz

    “Don’t know” (RL) and “don’t want to know” (AI.)
    I’m sensing a theme here, gentlemen. Don’t let facts get in the way of your feelings. Oh, and Victoria, It’ll be a while before you can “socialize” biological imperatives out of men. Feminists have been working on that for decades, and the results are pretty ugly.

  8. Matt

    To me, the whole manosphere reminds me of a fundamentalist movement, looking back to a supposed Golden Age of Masculinity that probably never existed, at least not as they conceive of it.Just as Islam was never really Salafism, and Christianity was never what today’s religious right snake handlers think it was, the gender landscape was never quite as clear cut and unambiguous as the manosphere advertises. And to the extent it was, the modern day wannabees wouldn’t stand a chance. I’d pay hard currency to see them try to negotiate the Social Darwinist world they claim to want.

    • Suz

      “the modern day wannabees wouldn’t stand a chance.”
      Yeah, because it would be SO much harder to be punished for failure and rewarded for success, as opposed to the current setup wherein they’re punished for failure AND punished for trying to succeed.

      Their whole point is that they’d HAVE a chance. They’d have a chance at the rewards for success. Those who fail could at least fail honestly.

      • Matt

        People who fail in today’s society fail for a variety of reasons. Being too d**n manly isn’t one of them. Some of the people in the manlolsphere have genuinely gotten the worst society has to offer. Most would do a lot better if they stopped thinking the world owed them something just for having a p*n*s, dropped the self pity, and actually did something worthwhile. Even if they want to spend all their time on the interwebs, they could create an informative and entertaining blog like Robert’s.

        • Suz

          Men would also do a lot better if women stopped thinking the world owed them something just for having a vagina, dropped the perpetual victim status, and actually did something productive. (Besides filling HR jobs, which depend on the existence of all kinds of “victims” and their “oppressors.” Not to mention make-work government jobs.)

          In fact, I think we’d ALL do a lot better.

        • @ Suz
          Maybe if a lot of men stopped falling over themselves white knighting women, women would have been compelled to see the world on more egalitarian terms. I live in one of the most un-feminist countries in the world and white knighting behaviors are utterly common.

          Take a look at this video.

          You think feminism is responsible for this?

          This sort of thing doesn’t happen in equal societies. In Norway or Sweden, which are a feminist strongholds, women don’t behave as badly as American or urban elite Indians do. Men don’t white knight in that part of the world (because everyone IS equal) and hence, a badly behaved woman would be shown the door. I have actually seen drunken western (~ American) women who behave like NYC ‘chicks in pubs’ actually got shown the door and left out in the cold, to find their way back home. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, whether it comes from someone with a penis or a vagina.

        • Suz

          “Maybe if a lot of men stopped falling over themselves white knighting women, women would have been compelled to see the world on more egalitarian terms.”
          Feminism ensure that women don’t have to see the world on more egalitarian terms.
          In America, feminism promotes INEQUALITY, not equality. Women aren’t held to nearly as high a standard as men, we have MORE rights and privileges, and naturally we take advantage – why not, it’s free! White knights have accepted the feminist notion that women are superior to men, and they feed into it, some out of ignorance (or training), some to curry favor, and some out fear of the legal system. In America, bad behavior by women is encouraged, while bad behavior by men is not only frowned upon, but criminalized as well. Naturally masculine behaviors are suppressed starting in preschool.
          Chivalry was intended to honor WORTHY women, not skanks. Yet in this country every lying, vulgar slutty skank demands it. And if white knights don’t provide it, they don’t get laid. Not to mention those already getting laid (occasionally, at least) who can lose their careers, their assets, their children, and their rights to due process with one well-placed lie to a 911 operator.
          The Manosphere is nothing more than men who understand this phenomenon, telling other men they shouldn’t have to put up with it. Some are fighting for legal rights, some want to have control over their sex lives, some want to have control over their professional lives. You know, the “control” feminism has taken away from them, which women can take for granted (with a little outside enforcement, of course.)

        • @ Suz
          I didn’t put feminism in the clear and I consider myself chivalrous. However, I still believe white knighting is the problem with many of the masculinist issues that MRAs bring up. And white knighting is not necessarily inspired by feminism. As you pointed out, a lot of men believe such behaviour is chivalrous and impressed women enough to get them laid. Which is again why we cannot get kid of white knighting, not by internet activism anyway.

        • Suz

          Actually, AI, internet activism is already putting a small dent in white knight behavior. Most of the men posting articles and comments in the Manosphere were once white knights themselves. They recognize how destructive their behavior was and they’re speaking out against it. THAT is the vast majority of what is being called “misogyny.” They hate being required to cater to irresponsible and demanding women, who give nothing back.

          You’re right, some men will always play the white knight it if they have something to gain by it. Most men have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Once they realize it, they tend to stop doing it. Rather defiantly.

  9. Kevin-bo

    I, for one, felt that kind of thing growing up, and I always was repulsed by it. It took me a long time to get to the point where I could make male friends who were older than me. Still, I cringe when, once I make friends with a seemingly nice older guy, he lets some comment drop that’s really misogynistic. It just really hurts, because it means I can’t trust him, really, and I’m back where I started. I’m hoping that all of this NEW liberalization of sadism is just a fad–the tendency of immature men to be very vocal about things.
    However, I do think that people’s rage has legitimate sources. In today’s society, where culture has become a very real, inescapable TRAP, people are bound to feel angry–men most of all. I think that’s where the survivalist strain of men’s culture comes from. Many of us would very much like to have the chance to do what our forbears of a couple hundred years ago (in North America) had the chance to do–homestead, and be independent–to not be slaves, to not be coerced, to not be under threat of imprisonment and harassment if we can’t or won’t conform to the economic plan of our culture.
    And another thing–how come the raisin I just ate had hair on it? Was it because I picked it up off of the carpet?

  10. Kevin-bo

    Just kidding about the raisin, although it happened to be true, I realize it wasn’t really relevant. But I noticed something at the top of these responses where you say that women “don’t do fascism.” From what I see, women are just as conformist as men, and just as likely to internalize the elements of a social system that make for fascism as men are, if not more so!
    If this is true, I think it might be because they would feel resentful of anyone ‘getting away with’ ‘following the rules’ to a less extent than they have had to to achieve what they’ve (women) achieved.
    A good example of what I’m talking about would be women young and old who criticize anyone who doesn’t follow their particular fascist form of Christianity, no matter how little sense it makes.

    • Kevin-bo

      Gol-dang it, I see I missed part of your point, which is that *feminists* don’t do fascism, not just that women don’t partake in it. Makes what I wrote immediately above less germane… Although, I do think that feminists can be somewhat fascistic. But….I don’t know very much about the different kinds of feminism. There are some kinds that are really hateful towards men, probably because they assume (because of loudmouthed guys) that all guys have disparaging thoughts about them. As for myself, I was raised mainly by my mom, and that’s the kind of ‘feminism’ that I believe in–that women are really cool, that they are smart, reasonable, practical, organized, etc.
      I’d have a hard time believing in any feminism or masculism that didn’t love their complementary gender (leaving out, for the moment, the other expressions of gender that we see here in the Bay Area).

  11. @ Suz
    I had a look at your link. It wasn’t anything new, not anything I already didn’t know anyway. Read Warren Farrell’s “The Myth of Male Power”. It tells more about ‘male privilege’ than this woman can ever understand.

  12. Suz

    AI, I do my best “work” on others’ sites, mine is nothing to write home about.

  13. Conquistador

    Some of your criticism of the manosphere are valid however they are a necessary evil. A bulwark against the feminization and emasculation of men. Males desperately need strong masculine environments nowadays. That’s why they’ve embraced video games often to the detriment of their actual lives. Men need what the manosphere offers that’s why it’s popularity continues to rise. Robert you refuse to even address their complaints under the idea that you “don’t want to think about it” and “prefer to get along”. You attack them but don’t provide alternatives because you can’t.

  14. An Unmarried Man

    I’ve always felt that if a man has a healthy relationship with his mother, chances are he will have a very difficult time rationalizing out misogyny. I have a healthy relationship with my mother, and I admire her for some of the shit she went through to keep the house together and raising us, but she also serves as a model of the traditional womanhood which has been belittled in our current “sophisticated” age of liberation.

  15. From your words to God’s ears! The MRM will self-destruct, I hope, but how much damage will be done before it implodes?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s