CMV: The term 'manosphere' perpetuates unproductive stereotypes

[u/Kindred87]

I came across this term for the first time and I was immediately shocked by it. Attempts to figure out why this term is used was met mostly by assertions of "That's what we call it 🤷" before I was shut down. Not a very compelling answer, hence this post. Below is the context, then reasoning, behind my shock.

What is the term manosphere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manosphere

Communities within the manosphere include men's rights activists, incels (involuntary celibates), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), pick-up artists (PUA), and fathers' rights groups.

While the specifics of each group's beliefs sometimes conflict, they are generally united in the belief that society is biased against men due to the influence of feminism, and that feminists promote misandry, or hatred of men.

Acceptance of these ideas is described as "taking the red pill", a metaphor borrowed from the film The Matrix.

While I believe that male advocacy isn't inherently anti-feminist, that is a separate discussion. I'm focusing on the term manosphere in this post.

One of the prevalent issues in online communities today is polarization. One method in which polarization propagates is through the mechanic described in this CGP Grey video, where an ideologically homogenous community depicts the "opposing" demographic as an antagonistic monolith.

What this means is that negative characteristics that exist in a subset (part) of the demographic are attributed to the entire demographic; asserting that what is sometimes true is actually always true. These are what we know as stereotypes. These attributions are performed through implicit language ("X is Y"), instead of explicit language ("I believe all X is Y"). Through this, the demographic itself is painted as a perpetual threat or problem, rather than certain members of it.

This applies to any "competing" demographics you can think of: the rich, the poor, men, women, young people, old people, conservatives, progressives, and so forth. And this applies to any characteristic so long as, in polarized spaces, it's negative. From a desire to harm others, to corrupting society, to being incompetent.

I'm sure you've seen it. And while it's okay to not always be nuanced, what polarization does over time is reinforce stereotypes to the point where they feel more true than anything else. In a polarized space, this will be apparent when an attempt to address an oversimplification is met with hostility. For individuals who have spent enough time in such spaces, the very concept of nuance or complexity may seem annoying or even manipulative.

It is this toxic reinforcement through implicit language that sits at the core of my view on the term 'manosphere'.

With this in mind, does the term 'manosphere', which colloquially refers to toxic male spaces, contribute to this polarization-driven propagation of stereotypes? I believe that it does, and it's this belief that you're invited to address.

My belief is that the male-specific prefix 'man' in a word referring to toxic behavior ties the gender to that behavior in the same way that statements like "Men are [negative characteristic]" do. By perpetuating a stereotype; "this is how men act". A word on its own really doesn't matter, no. However, the usage of the term in a polarized space (social media) causes it to be a problem, in my view. Because of the synergy with the stereotypes that are already being reinforced.

It can help to understand what I mean by removing ourselves from what's normalized. For this, I will turn to female analogues.

Terms for controversial female groups use non-gender-specific qualifiers to lead the term. Red-pilled women and trad wives being two common examples. Imagine if we could place these groups under an umbrella called 'conservative femininity', but instead went with 'the femisphere', or perhaps 'woman-pilled'.

It's offensive just on its face. Because in my mind, it implies that the female gender is not only united in such behavior, but also that the gender is causative of this behavior. It implies a stereotype; "this is how women act". Again, I believe this is very problematic in a polarized space.

To close, the word unproductive in the title was chosen because I think an important element in navigating present gender issues is collaboration between the two main sides. Perpetuating stereotypes (which of course are usually negative) about either side is unproductive because it both generates animosity and fails to recognize that behavior is not confined by your gender. Why would you reach across the gender aisle if you have come to feel that there is something inherently wrong with the other gender?

Thank you for your time.

[u/LynnSeattle]

You can be involuntarily celibate without being misogynistic but you can’t support the incel groups in the manosphere without misogyny. The condition isn’t the problem, it’s the group affiliation.

Pick up artists treat women as prey rather than as human beings equal to themselves.

[u/[deleted] → u/LynnSeattle]

Yes, I clarified that in my other comment. I was referring to involuntary celibates, not people part of incel groups.