Information icon.svg MediaWiki[wp] is hostile to Men, see T323956.
Information icon.svg For the first time in 80 years, German tanks will roll against Russia.

Germany has been a party to the war since 999 days by supplying weapons of war.

German Foreign Minster Annalena Baerbock: "We are fighting a war against Russia" (January 25, 2023)

Manosphere

From WikiMANNia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main Page → Internet → Manosphere
Main Page → Man → Men's movement → Manosphere
Roughly simplified representation

The manosphere (or Man-O-Sphere) is an umbrella term that covers many different male-dominated online communities, vlogs and blogs etc. The main reason they formed is because mainstream society seems apathetic to male-specific issues and men realized that males are disposable.


"The Manosphere - A Positive Future for Men, Boys, and Fathers"


Manosphere refers collectively to all individuals and groups with some interest in issues affecting men. The groups are not generally affiliated and their projects are not aligned, and include such disparate interest groups as pro-feminist men, Men's Human Right's Advocates, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), advocates for traditional male gender roles, pickup artists (PUAs), and father's rights organizations.

Mainstream media disingenuously projects the manosphere as a monolithic entity, while most groups included under that heading are quick to point out the error of this characterization. For instance, in 2012 the high profile Men's Human Rights organization A Voice for Men officially stated its nonalignment with the manosphere concept:

Quote: «The very expression, man-o-sphere, implicitly paints an image of connectivity; of shared purpose and identity... there is no real or abiding connection; no universality or even commonality... The man-o-sphere itself is a misnomer, a façade hidden behind an illusion. Looking for unity or support or action in that non entity is nothing more than looking for water in an empty bucket.» - Paul Elam[1]

Emily Shire[ext], writing for News Week, October 2013 defined the manosphere as

[...] a community of MRM blogs, groups, and publications "where participants rant and spew ideas so misogynist they make Silvio Berlusconi[wp] look like Gloria Steinem [2]

She then immediately linked her definition to AVfM, despite the very public rejection of concept by A Voice for Men over a year earlier.

In November 2013, Dean Esmay, Managing Editor of A Voice for Men, further clarified the concept and corrected Shire's errors:

Quote: «[The concept of one unified Manosphere] is like implying that there is a "ladysphere" and it is owned or controlled by feminists, and that everything from Ms. Magazine, Cosmopolitan, Feministing, Good Housekeeping, Jezebel, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving are all part of it - or even like implying that Shire herself is part of some so-called "ladysphere". [...] AVfM long ago disassociated from anything called the Man-o-sphere, precisely for the purpose of distancing ourselves from multiple elements that we find irrelevant or outright repellant - although we do carry multiple links to sites whose work we find noteworthy. But even then, we don't claim to be affiliated with them.» - Dean Esmay[3]
Quote: «Manosphere - the areas within cyberspace wherein men tend to congregate to talk about things in which men seem to be particularly interested - not necessarily to do with gender issues or intra-gender issues - e.g. areas wherein men might talk about men's health, rugby, video games etc etc - basically, those areas in cyberspace wherein men are very dominant.» - Angry Harry[4]
For several years now, the website I read more than any other has been Château Heartiste, formerly known as Chateau Roissy. I also read Roosh V[wp]. from time to time. Both men are highly intelligent, and Heartiste is also a brilliant stylist, with a wicked sense of humor.

But, for all the pleasure and knowledge I have derived from these and other manosphere writers, I am increasingly drawn to the view that the net result of the manosphere is to morally corrupt men.

Paradoxical though it may seem, I also think the manosphere is actually a mechanism by which women morally corrupt men. The manosphere is touted as a way for men to emancipate themselves from the tyranny of feminism, but in reality it functions as a subtle instrument of female domination.

No normal, healthy man would want his daughter or sister to be emotionally manipulated and sexually exploited by a man who is narcissistic, sociopathic, and Machiavellian[wp] - or just a garden variety jerk.


However, the manosphere informs us that science, history, and copious anecdotal testimony show that when women are allowed complete choice in the sexual realm - particularly if they can have sex without the threat of pregnancy - they do not simply gravitate toward biologically and mentally healthy men with "Alpha" traits but also to a whole range of "false positives," ranging from emotionally aloof and unavailable men to jerks and cads to men with severe "dark triad" personality disorders: narcissism, sociopathy, and Machiavellianism[wp].

A healthy, well-ordered society punishes jerks and cads. Ideally, it should simply weed out people with severe personality disorders by preventing them from reproducing. Thus, emancipated female sexual choice morally and psychologically corrupts men. Not because sex is evil or "sinful," but because emancipated women reward anti-social behaviors and pathological personality traits with sex. Furthermore, emancipated female sexual choice harms the women who fall victim to jerks and sociopaths. Finally, since a great deal of personality is genetically determined and thus heritable, emancipated female sexuality is dysgenic, because it helps perpetuate jerk genes.

To correct these problems, we need to roll back sexual liberation by reestablishing social shaming for female promiscuity and, most importantly, involving the family - particularly fathers and brothers - in the process by which women choose suitors and husbands. Involving the family in her deliberations can expand a woman’s awareness and sharpen her judgments by bringing other perspectives into play. Men, furthermore, are better than women at discerning good men from evil ones, and, as I said above, no decent man wants his sister or daughter to be exploited and victimized by bad men. (For all the same reasons, mothers and sisters should involve themselves in the process of selecting suitors and mates for the young men in their families.)

Now, I suspect that manosphere gurus like Heartiste and Roosh are actually with me so far, even agreeing basically with my conservative political agenda.


So why do I think that the manosphere works as a tool by which feral feminine desire corrupts men? Because the manosphere simply takes emancipated female sexuality as a given. Then it teaches young men to adopt the behaviors and mimic the traits that appeal to such women. Young men not only learn about healthy masculine traits but also admiringly analyze "jerkboy" game and "dark triad" cads.

For me, the alarm bell sounded when two young Heartiste readers whom I respect and admire independently offered the same argument: to wit, that I was wrong about a third individual, because he is not Machiavellian, just narcissistic and lacking in empathy. This analysis, mind you, was offered as a defense rather than as an indictment of an infamy to be crushed.

In sum, my concern is that the manosphere teaches young men to emulate anti-social and pathological traits. Women then reinforce these traits with one of the most powerful inducements of all: sex. And, over time, otherwise good men become the kind of men they would never allow around their own sisters and daughters. This is moral corruption. Namely, moral corruption by teaching men to conform to emancipated female desire rather than to correct it.

The manosphere provides the New Right with all the theoretical premises necessary for a patriarchal sexual counter-revolution that reinstitutes traditional and - it turns out - biologically sound norms and institutions to govern sexuality, thereby promoting the individual happiness of men and women and the common good of society and the race in general.

But in practical terms, the manosphere does not promote such a restoration, but instead urges an ethic of "riding the tiger" (or perhaps the cougar), i.e., to personally wallow in - and thus to amplify and advance - the decadence that we are supposed to combat.

– Greg Johnson[5]

References

  1. ↑ Paul Elam: "Adios, c-ya, good-bye man-o-sphere", A Voice for Men on September 5, 2012
  2. ↑ Shire, Emily (25 Oct 2013). "A short guide to the Men's Rights Movement". The Week. THE WEEK Publications, Inc. Archived from the original on 26 Nov 2013
  3. ↑ Dean Esmay: A short guide to the Men's Rights Movement: Emily Shire's generalizations, A Voice for Men on November 13, 2013
  4. ↑ Angry Harry: Angry Harry on Terminology, The Antifeminist on October 31, 2013
  5. ↑ Greg Johnson: Does the Manosphere Morally Corrupt Men?, Counter-Currents Publishing / North American New Right on February 25, 2015

See also

External links


This article based initially on an article Manosphere (18 October 2013) from the free Encyklopedia Wiki4Men. The Wiki4Men article is published under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). In Wiki4Men is a List of Authors available those who worked on the text before being incorporated in WikiMANNia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikimannia.org/index.php?title=Manosphere&oldid=6223"