Recently commenter Liz posted something about Andrew Tate. Here is a related essay on Andrew Tate and the Manosphere.
The manosphere has a sneaky implicit position that we should be very sexist, but racially tolerant. Sexist, but not racist.
It’s a sort of patriarchal rainbow coalition, as if Myron wouldn’t have been more a “second class citizen” than White women 60 years ago. He wouldn’t have even been allowed to drink from the same water fountain.
This is not to say the manosphere won’t engage in some “edgy racism.” For example, Myron got demonetized for posting a tirade of what could be called low IQ slurs: “Mexicans are like this! Blacks are like that!” So you’ll find people in the manosphere who can use the “forbidden words.” (Along with every single teenager behind closed doors. It isn’t hard.) It’s also just signaling.
I can’t see takes like “we should make women second class citizens” coming from a Black guy (of relatively recent familial immigrant history) be taken seriously by anyone who takes their own racism seriously. People who are not just signaling. Who have really internalized some kind of racial group struggle.
No one who is out there “noticing” is focusing exclusively on women. They are looking at people like Myron. Immigrants, crime stats, group differences in intelligence, whatever – the bad guys of these stories look demographically like Myron.
This is similar to Andrew Tate: Black convert to Islam, also a literal pimp, who has been accused by a dozen White women of sexual assault. Black men used to just get lynched for that. Just extrajudicially killed on the mere accusation a White woman. White women were quite higher in the social hierarchy than these men. There is no past “traditional” era they would have thrived in. You actually have to be quite racially colorblind and egalitarian to be a fan – listening to someone like Tate opine on “Western values” and such. Just conspicuously ignoring his race and religion.
This is why when the media has categorized the manosphere in the past as a “far right” space, they have been wrong.
Recent research on incels has shown otherwise; same with polls of Tate fans. Disproportionately non-White both.
You can look into a crowd at any Fresh & Fit event and it is almost exclusively minority men. More than 60% of the top manosphere influencers are non-White. They all oppose marriage and traditional values, promote promiscuity, etc.
Basically what you have is a very diverse group of people who are liberal in every way except for the fact that they are sexist and mad at women. Aside from being sexist and mad at women, however, they are spiritually liberal. And if not just spiritually liberal, spiritually (and often even in their own explicit beliefs) Islamic.
They cannot want a “return,” because no past historical period would have included them. They can’t have any real ethnically-aware position on immigration, because they also would not be in the “America of 100M.” It’s really not surprising so many of these guys flirt with or outright convert to Islam, because that is the actually-existing ideology that most closely mirrors their beliefs, and that would actually accept them if it were implemented as a political strategy.
In the meantime, it is only due to a liberal and open society that they are tolerated at all. Any political movement (again, except for something like Islam) that would implement a patriarchy of any kind would crack down even harder on them.
I’ve noted for a couple years now that the Manosphere is largely leftist. Bruce Charlton has noted the same thing. The sole apparent exception is its “right-wing,” regressive, sexist views on women.
Mostly the Manosphere is not racist at all. It’s largely a “rainbow coalition” of just men. Since intelligence differences are considered by the mainstream to be racist, this means that the Manosphere is—and must be—largely and implicitly blankslatist as well. A few have deviated from this, but not most.
The Christian Manosphere is the oddest subset, because Islam gives it everything it wants socially, but the Christian Manosphere nevertheless refuses to convert, leaving it stranded without a home. Instead it pines for a return to a past that never really existed and only exists as creative fiction in the minds of its proponents.
The Manosphere is schizophrenic and sometimes delusional. They eagerly hope for the self-induced end of modern society, thinking they will come out on top. The reality is that the new world order will have no place for them either.
I place my hope in the transformative power of Christ, whether this world has a place for me or not. This is never without cost. It often includes giving up the world’s notions of “winning.” So be it.
If only this had been the lynchpin (or really the cornerstone) of what became known as the Christian Manosphere.
But nonetheless, as Scripture says here, it is TRUE:
Just read the comment from yesterday. All I’ve done is advocate positive ethics, morality and behavior based on doing the will of the Father: defined by a positive relationship with Jesus Christ. But the Manosphere is based on negative ethics, morality, and behavior: defined by a relationship to (against) evil. Like the left, it is focused on being “anti-” whatever, not “pro-” whatever.
They literally believe that doing good is not a meaningful solution to evil, that evil must be confronted and destroyed directly. As Charlton notes, it’s about destruction. But this is not what Jesus wanted. To wit:
Your own words testify against you. The Scripture says:
And again,
And again,
[Spending] all these words, all this sophistry, to say: “Abandon your conscience and make accord with the Synagogue of Satan, the very murderers of Christ, for cynical political expediency! It’s the Christian thing to do! No, who cares if they want to ban Christ and fund Israel’s Forever War? Who cares if they’re just as committed to Immivasion as the other side? Who cares if they’re just as devoted to building the Panopticon Surveillance State? They’re not witches and whores and sodomites- well, not whores and sodomites- well, not sodomites- well, not OPENLY, so it’s okay! Aristotle said so! And if you don’t agree, you’re just lazy, and a gutless coward!”
A focus on Jesus isn’t viewed as a solution to the problem. Jesus never promised an immediate solution to one’s problems. He promised a solution in the age to come.
Jesus never promised that evil would be conquered in your lifetime. He promised that on the Day of Judgment everything would be made right at the hand of God.
Modern man reads 1 Peter and the promises that Peter made about the future life to come in response to the suffering here-and-now and this does not resonate with most men. They don’t want their problems to be solved in the life-to-come, they want them solved now. And they’ll do whatever it takes to make that happen.
See here, here, and especially here and here. I’ve also described it in “On Suffering.”
The Manosphere, at its core, is activism.
Lol……when Nietzsche wrote “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” he declared God being dead, the will to power, the self, and gave maxims, quotes, stories, situations….a new “superman” so to speak.
His personal life was pretty abysmal. He was very angry, sad and had massive bouts of depression, anger and blistering resentment.
Yet…..he expected readers and followers to “rise above” and “just do what he said” because “he deemed it as such” and “any man can do this if they just apply themselves”
Who’s playing God here? A God he declared dead, and useless.
And…he couldnt even live up to these standards he laid out.
I used to really like and “believe” in what Ayn Rand purported in her fiction (Atlas Shrugged / The Fountainhead). It was impossible to live up to, and it was a work of fiction. Yes, some great ideas put fourth. Her storytelling is superb. But take it for what it is. A great novel(s), a great story. Something that is a “good read” and is a solid hallmark of 20th century writing.
But to live it? You cant. She couldnt. Her devotee Nathaniel Bradshaw (who I met) couldnt even live it.
This playing “God” in areas of the socio-cultural, political looks great on paper, and can make for a good story….and it even may have some solid idealism that can indeed inspire…..but pushing the aspect of YOU live this and DO IT while “I” can make excuses for which I cannot or did not live this is basically now “the red pill manophere”
Rules for thee but not for me. Once reasonable men see this, they move on. They nod, smirk, laugh, and take what they need and see that “yes, some of this is helpful”
But to live by a billion rules, maxims, cultural, societal, sexual…….
None can do this. None.
Remember all the “rules” the Hebrews had in order to be holy before God? None could be followed 100% of the time…yet God wanted fellowship through His creation. Hence Jesus
The dogmatic, rules, maxims, addendums, proxy, subset to subset of this rule or that rule (all unbreakable, 100% proven to be true) cannot be followed, adhered to and upheld in every moment and situation.
They dont follow 20% of what they preach and tell you…..but expect YOU to do this
That is similar to Schopenhauer, who some in the Manosphere admire. I wrote about him two months ago here. I wrote:
It is philosophy driven by negative experiences.
YOU live this and DO IT while “I” can make excuses for which I cannot or did not live this is basically now “the red pill manophere”
Rules for thee but not for me. Once reasonable men see this, they move on. They nod, smirk, laugh, and take what they need and see that “yes, some of this is helpful”
As said in Tuesday’s essay, never in the history of mankind has everyone just done it. The rules and maxims are not a solution and can never be.
The most blatant example in recent times was when they said that the only thing that matters is that a woman must demonstrate her obedience to her boyfriend’s authority while dating…. while neglecting her disobedience to her father’s authority (which is supposed to be ultra important). It is exactly the selective application of the rules that you describe.
The dogmatic, rules, maxims, addendums, proxy, subset to subset of this rule or that rule (all unbreakable, 100% proven to be true) cannot be followed, adhered to and upheld in every moment and situation.
They dont follow 20% of what they preach and tell you…..but expect YOU to do this
Which was what was said here in this Reddit article a year ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/18cq2us/what_turned_you_off_of_red_pill/
sensibl3chuckle
•
1y ago
I’ve never seen a redpill with a relationship that I’d want. They are all so hostile and dismissive to women. Relationships are like transactions. They are like the Milton Freedman of human relationships, which is exhausting.
&
Evening_Invite_922
•
1y ago
Basically the negative attitude to life, that I as a man had to be perfect physically, and or manipulate a woman in order to be successful.
Both have a small element of truth, but it kept going too far
Yet what is left of the golden age manosphere won’t listen to any of that criticism.
While wanting to ”win”.
I’ve said that before, but it goes both ways. I wouldn’t want a Red Pill relationship and I’m not jealous of any of them. But they are also not jealous of my own situation. There is a wide gulf between what we want.
Idk……you cant base everything off just posts and comments.
I mean, I have met a few men from the ‘sphere “face to face” and it is admitted that both parties were “pleasantly” surprised by the actual meeting. I was not some doomer blackpill guy / guy with zero social skills / blinded by blue-pill-thinking and cuckery
and the men I have met were not cold, logical, ideologues who just spoke like linear robots about “red pill” and “lore” and “must have sex ten times a day”
Im sure many actually have a sense of humor, but sometimes I do still wonder 🙂
True, I’m only basing it on an online caricature, not a real person.
Idk……you cant base everything off just posts and comments.
I mean, I have met a few men from the ‘sphere “face to face” and it is admitted that both parties were “pleasantly” surprised by the actual meeting. I was not some doomer blackpill guy / guy with zero social skills / blinded by blue-pill-thinking and cuckery
and the men I have met were not cold, logical, ideologues who just spoke like linear robots about “red pill” and “lore” and “must have sex ten times a day”
Of course that’s true.
I’ve known most people online have an incentive to be ”meaner, or opening up more online than they normally would in face to face conversations” because of ”the online disinhibition effect”.
As seen in this article:
https://www.kqed.org/education/532334/is-the-internet-making-you-meaner
Is the Internet Making You Meaner?
Lauren Farrar
Aug 5, 2019
Save Article
If the Internet’s making you feel meaner, you’re not imagining it. People really do act differently online than they do in person. Here’s why.
Do people act differently online than they do in person?
Yes. This phenomenon is known as the online disinhibition effect. Essentially, being online lowers your inhibitions. This often results in people either behaving meaner, or opening up more online than they normally would in face to face conversations. When people act meaner online it can lead to hostile online environments. This is what researchers call “toxic disinhibition.” Conversely, when people open up more freely online than in person– they can often feel more connected to online users, which creates a supportive online environment. Researchers call this “benign disinhibition.”
Why are people meaner online than they are in person?
People aren’t always meaner online than in person, but according to the online disinhibition effect people can act differently online. The most common ways people act differently is by either being meaner or opening up more. According to a paper published in 2004 by psychologist John Suler, there are about 6 main reasons people act differently online. First, if you’re anonymous online you feel less accountable for your actions and less vulnerable when it comes to opening up about personal things. Additionally, online you’re often “invisible” so you don’t have to worry about body language and tone– and you can easily misrepresent yourself. With online communication there is usually a lag-time between when you post something and when you get a response, so it’s easy to just post something and bounce without thinking about the consequences. Online, we also tend to attribute voices and imagined characteristics to written text based on our own expectations and not necessarily on the actual intended meaning/ tone of the text, which can lead people to act differently than they might in person. People also tend to view online more as a game, where real life rules don’t necessarily apply. And finally, authority figures aren’t as big of a deal online– online, people pretty much feel and act as equals, which can lead people to act differently than they normally would offline.
You will definitely see the ”meaner” aspect in anything about current politics online and once hillary Clinton was the known democrat candidate for 2016 in what was then what was left of the golden age manosphere, its been non-stop politics in the ‘sphere(as Farm Boy=FB for one, can’t go one post at Spawnys without mentioning her in his opening comment)
The Manosphere was never as monolithic as you’ve made out. It was, and still is, for good or ill, a male reaction to the institutional misandry brought about by feminism and the misguided chivalry that enables it. Some of it is good, some not so good.
There used to be a wide variety of constituent blogs that made up the Manosphere. It was neither Christian nor Muslim, nor any religion at all, nor either a white man’s or black man’s domain, nor a place solely for activists, incels, misogynists, cads, bouncers or any other group it gives you pleasure to pillory. There was as much anti-activism as there was activism, and as much that was friendly to women as otherwise. There was lots of debate and plenty of conflicting ideas.
The Manosphere eventually petered out because men are not collectivists the way women are and couldn’t coalesce around a common defining principle. What remains revolves around the basic notions of sexual conquest and whatever stems from feelings of failure in that regard. There are also contrarians who feel good about themselves by mocking, shaming or ridiculing other men for wanting to talk about what’s bothering them. It’s all pretty pathetic.
The “manosphere” petered out because men are not “collectivists” (your quote)
Well……I will grant, or could believe that in theory, on “paper” so to speak. In general, men are not collectivists. But all the big named writings, theories, stances, philosophies, treaties, pamphlets and implementation has been done by MEN
And it wasnt for “collectivism” so to speak. It was for pure, naked power and control. The feminists, the progressives, the artists, the activists were the useful idiots in helping carrying out these means over the past two centuries. Some of the most strident activists / collectivists and “freedom fighters” for these revolutions found themselves sitting in a jail cell after the overthrow. All were perplexed, “What happened to our revolution?” many asked.
So your statement isnt really entirely true, but I will grant that you accept this, and in general this could be a case.
The “manosphere” arose out or from the ashes of “PUA / Game” overall. Sure, you had some from waaaaayyyyy back who were speaking about this on unknown blogs and webpages before YouTube. I am sure there are thinkers and writers before the mainstreaming or advent of the Internet who were as well on to this, or something akin to it (Dr G Martin, the guy who wrote about ‘love shy’ / ‘Incels’ back in the 1980’s (no one cared then, no one cares now).
Even proto-pick up artists like Ross Jefferies in the late 1970’s, into the 1980’s….yeah, Something was up. He knew about it. Even English pop band “Supertramp” in 1977 had a song off an album called “loverboy” about a guy who “found a book on how to pick up / hit on women”.
So the early ‘sphere was driven on “getting sex” and “dates” and how to get her to do “the panty drop”. Pure manipulation, and its still that today. Everything you have to do, and MUST do in order to get your wife, your date, your girlfriend to give you sex, and “do what you want” through manipulation, supposed threats….because “men cannot live without sex”
Jesus somehow was forgotten in all of this…..
One has to generalize to some degree for brevity. The Manosphere was lots of different things for lots of different men, which is the point I’m making. It served, and still serves, as a forum of ideas. Since it wasn’t and isn’t specifically Christian, it doesn’t hold any specifically Christian assumptions. There were many prominent Christian bloggers like Dalrock etc, and Catholics like Cane Caldo etc, and humanists like Paul Elam, and neutrals like Rollo Tomassi, but the point was to discuss men’s issues without any specific profession of faith.
But that turned out to be it’s undoing. Men who are serious about things are generally principled beings and will end up fighting with each other even to the death (mostly in olden times) over some little minutiae that is crucial to their logic but trivial or irrelevant to others. Men have always been like this, we want to fight for what we think is right and this is our fundamental difficulty in holding together as a collective. It always seems to come down to whoever is the strongest wins. Men simply don’t have the commitment to support each other without a common value principle that they themselves hold dearly. For men the truth is important and must be won, whereas for women the truth is subordinate to fitting in. This is essentially why the Manosphere is easy for men with their own ideas to denigrate. The only feasible solution to the inevitable descent into tribalism is a central coalescing principle which for Christians is of course Jesus, or more specifically not necessarily agreeing with each other but a commitment to loving each other ‘in the Lord.’
Useful essay – a few red herrings wrt racism IMO; but the numbers about the ethnicity of bloggers and contributors make a difference; and are something I hadn’t previous noticed.
It’s hard to make people grasp that it makes a difference what are your ultimate assumptions. These are what shape our attitudes, convictions, behaviours over time.
People (not you) use straw man caricatures to reject what they don’t want, while they use statistical exceptions to excuse their own preferences.
It’s like the widespread conviction that the universe, earth, life, mankind all developed due to a series of it-just-is scientific laws mixed with undirected randomness. Not many people say this explicitly, but it underlies all of public discourse and functional institutional activities.
Over time these implicit assumptions have necessarily led to all kinds of societal and individual incoherence, self-contradictions and purposelessness; with no tendency to self-correct.
At a much lower level, the Manosphere is rooted in underlying assumptions that necessarily lead to the bad outcomes you have described, and without a tendency to self-correct. It just goes on and on, circling around the same old drain.
Because the basic world-view of the Mansphere is wrong; even decent people sooner or later get dragged into, then dominated by, by bad habits of assuming, thinking and behaving.
The way out from this is not by incremental modifications, but a return to reconsidering the basic principles.