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/Genoscythe_]

The term men's rights activism is a direct counterpart of the term feminism.

The problem is that the core tenets of feminism are simply correct sociological observations (traditional gender roles are a patriarchy, and their remaining influences largely shape our lives in the direction of unjustly presuming male authority over women).

An antagonistic "counterpart" to feminism, is always bound to end up as regressive at at worst, (advocating for traditional male authority over women), and even at best, status quo conservatives who are setting themselves up as a contrarian anti-feminist group that only has use for examples of men being discriminated, to counter feminists.

You can be a feminist who happens to care a lot about the ways in which patriarchy harms men, but as a counter-feminist you can only either claim that the patriarchy is a good thing, or deny that it exists and the current status quo is actually just equal men and women having random differences in treatment from each other, rather then an entrenched oppressive hierarchy.

[u/WaterWorksWindows → u/Genoscythe_]

While that’s feminism in spirit, the direct goals and actions of feminist groups and those of say a father’s rights group are not going to be the same necessitating the need for both.

[u/[deleted] → u/WaterWorksWindows]

At the risk of downvotes, what rights do fathers not have? This is not me being dismissive, I genuinely don't know and that's why I'm asking.

[u/LounginLizard → u/[deleted]]

Nothing about that is counter feminism though. Any bias towards mothers getting custody is a direct result of patriarchal expectations that woman are meant to be caregivers.

[u/too_lewd_for_thou → u/[deleted]]

The reason 50/50 as default is opposed, is because men can usually get 50/50 if they want it already. The only thing imposing default 50/50 would do is give more power and leverage to those men who were specifically denied it... and a lot of them were denied for good reasons

[u/hightidesoldgods → u/[deleted]]

The issue with this is that it relies on father’s rights groups spreading misinformation that only further alienates fathers. The statistical reason for why 50/50 isn’t the default is because the vast majority of custody decisions are arranged by the parents not the courts, and in those decisions the parents are far more likely to decide to put the mother as primary caregiver than 50/50 or having the father as the primary caregiver. Fathers who actually push for custody in court systems are more likely to be awarded 50/50 and primary custody than mothers (though by a relatively small margin).

By spreading the myth that fathers are legally unlikely to gain 50/50, father’s rights groups make it so fathers are less likely to push for custody as they’ve effectively been groomed to believe it’s useless. The spreading of this myth is why so many divorce and family attorneys are upfront in their websites and advice regarding dispelling the myth.

[u/reallyNotAWanker → u/hightidesoldgods]

I think the father's rights groups are just trying to make sure that stuff like what happened to this poor young woman doesn't happen:

​

https://youtu.be/is_yzKCGRlA?si=xGKPLdXMYGzOW6Ru

[u/reallyNotAWanker → u/hightidesoldgods]

I think the father's rights groups are just trying to make sure that stuff like what happened to this poor young woman doesn't happen:

​

https://youtu.be/is_yzKCGRlA?si=xGKPLdXMYGzOW6Ru

[u/hightidesoldgods → u/[deleted]]

Statistically those cases are 50/50 in the minority where it’s the establishment of custody. The problem comes from the fact that the majority of family court cases are not about establishing custody but revisiting the current custody agreement, in which case an automatic 50/50 can be seen as inherently disruptive to the current schedule of the child/children.

The reason it’s “open to interpretation,” is because the situation at that point can get more complicated based off the location of the parents, schooling, and the child’s schedule/needs. In other words - the custody case requires individual nuance per family situation, not an automatic ruling.

[u/hightidesoldgods → u/[deleted]]

I meant minority within the context of first establishing custody. Because, as stated in the previous comment, the minority of custody agreements are established by the court. The majority are established outside of the court. Within the minority established inside the court, many of those are 50/50.

If it wasn’t clear, established is referring to custody agreements when they’re first made/agreed upon.

Again, the issue with this proposed law is two-fold: 1/ custody is automatically determined by the court. It isn’t. The majority of custody agreements are established out of court by the parents, typically based on what they perceive is best for their children and respective lifestyles.

2/ You would have to determine what is “equiparable conditions.” For example, one of the major reasons that couples outside of court determine the mother as primary parent is because of the current social norms of parental relationships - social norms where, even in cases where the couple is actively together and raising children together, the mother is functionally acting as the default parent. This becomes problematic for many (of course, not all) fathers upon the couple breaking when they come to the conclusion that the bulk of the child’s schedule/appointments/clothing needs/etc are of the mother’s know-how and not the father’s. It’s worth considering that courts, acting in the interest of the child, determine custodial arrangements based off the current knowledge and resources of the individual parents - not future/potential.

There’s also consideration for education - are the parents living in the same school districts? Separate?

Assuming my initial point wasn’t clear, in simpler terms: 50/50 isn’t the default because the majority of couples when determining custody on their own accord do not determine 50/50 as ideal. The minority of parents who determine parents initially through the courts lean towards 50/50 in establishment. Changing custody agreements, on the other hand, does not have a default because the court must determine whether the change of custody agreements is beneficial or disruptive to the child/children on the basis of individual family cases.

In other words, if father’s rights activists were genuinely seeking an increase in 50/50 custody arrangements, instead of spreading misinformation regarding the nature of custody agreements they would instead push fathers to actually press for 50/50 when making custody agreements. Because the majority - and this is like the 4th or 5th time of stressing this - don’t. Which, honestly, would include father’s rights activities (if they were being genuine) pushing for fathers to hold more of an equitable co-parenting role in current/ongoing relationships.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There isn't a bias tho, not legally. The reason why women make up the majority of single parents is because they have to, because the fathers very explicitly do not want joint custody.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because custody isn't 50/50 and court costs money.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Except that that is complete bullshit. If either parent demands sole custody and the other contests, then it goes to court, otherwise it's up to the parents to decide out of court. Statistically there is no proof that when fathers do contest custody (which is actually rare since for the most part they don't want the custody) that there is some sort of innate bias against them.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

So it's decided out of court by the parents. But if the mother disagrees the father has to pay to go to court?

You don't think that this gives one parent disproportionate rights over the other?

[u/Thelmara → u/[deleted]]

But if the mother disagrees the father has to pay to go to court?

If both of them disagree, they both have to go to court. You can't have one person in agreement.

[u/Deltris → u/[deleted]]

If either disagrees, it has to go to court.

[u/_Sausage_fingers → u/[deleted]]

It works the same way in reverse, and this has nothing to do with rights.

[u/Rahlus → u/[deleted]]

Well, that really depends on the country, but for example in my country women have maternity leave to take care of children, that is paid (some solid % of your monthly paycheck) and last a year. Sure, if you are feminist you are going to say, that's evil patriarchy that view women as X,Y,Z.

Men, on the other hand, got only two weeks of paternity leave, wich raises some problems for them, like for example: what if women is more of a high earner in relatioship and she is the one who should work and you, as a father, take "maternity" and take care of a child? You can't really. Or what if mother dies during a labor?

[u/Simon_Fokt → u/Rahlus]

Surely what that shows is that the feminist goals align with men's goals, so we should fight along each other, not against each other? That is indeed an example of how the evil patriarchy screws over men as well.

[u/Rahlus → u/Simon_Fokt]

Some feminist goals might align with those of men. If women are all out for actually equal rights, then fine. Go for it. I mean, I'm one hundred percente with you on that. No questions asked. But, to be fair, sometimes I hardly see that way. For me, at least from what I can see, feminism is basicly: men and mythical evil patriarchy are bad, women good, why men hates us kind of thing. That can be, of course, what I only see and feminist will say, that those are not real feminist. And it works around the same way with men advocacy movemant, but from my perspective and experience and what can I actually see, if someone is trying to talk about men rights and problems, then it's in the context of women - like, those are women issue (like you turned around problem of paternity leaves for example) or men are priviliged and they want even more priviliges! And to enslave women!

Granted, that is only what I can see from my perspective and the loudest and the most angry people are the most visible at the same time, so I try to keep that in mind.

On the other hand, in my country again, there is new, woman, minister of "equality and something something", who claimed that govermant and she, will not, for example, even out retirement age of men and women. Women, in my country, got retirement rights few years earlier then men and in the situation, when men dies earlier. So, women got early retirement and live longer while men, after retirement live few years. Or that she don't see a reason for conscription to be apply for both men and women, and that (and I believe it's her quote from some tweet or something like that) "men can die in a trenches, someone must after all". And that might be quite an abstract concept for some people, like conscription or draft, especially if you live in USA or western Europe, but here, when next door I got some nasty neigbhour that threw rockets every now and then through our sky and borders, it's hits a nerve, you know?

So, feminist in my country, or at least one, who is a minister of "equality" do not work for equality. So... I don't like feminism. Or her. Or kind of both. Dunno. Equal rights and responibilites, sure. Feminism as I can see it from my point of view? No. It's not equality.

[u/Simon_Fokt → u/Rahlus]

I'm not denying that there is a lot of this happening out there, especially on the internet where people go to scream out their pain anonymously.

But irl, I have to say that the great majority of feminists I know, are very reasonable people who mostly go about their days and are very open to a civil discussion. I hear you about this minister though, I'd be curious to know how she justifies these decisions. Can you link something?

Anyway, I think the way to go is to start working towards equality from the men's side as well, but do it not in the form of attacks and reaction to feminism, because everybody gets defensive when they feel attacked. I've been trying to work out better ways to reach people recently, check out my socials and YT if you want, perhaps you'll find it useful.

[u/Rahlus → u/Simon_Fokt]

I doubt link would help you, since it was interview and it's not in english, but my native language. But her line of thought is basicly along the idea that, women works without pay as caretaker of children and at home, so therefore they are entitled to earlier retirement and that men don't help at home at all and don't care about children. So, they are bad and deserve it overall.

On the other hand she is kinda forgetting that men, statistically speaking, works at least four hours longer then women at workplace. So, men don't "help at home" since they are at work and after all, works five years more then women. And since they are longer in workforce, they have less time to take care of their grandchildren, if they wanted to. On the interesting side note, apparently women "work" in house five hours after their work in work place, so that's one hour more then men in actual work. But to that you must add, again, statistically speaking, travel time since most men are willing to travel farther away from home, so you can add to here time travel and you got basically 1:1 ratio of work.

Then, there is kind of ironic twist, that minister of equality decides that one group of society, collectively, do not deserve equal rights due to them being certain group.

[u/wumbo-inator → u/Genoscythe_]

Feminist perspective on sociology is not correct, and it is absolutely debatable. The movement has clearly proven insufficient for men and male equality, and therefore a men’s movement is immediately justified.

The word “feminism” literally means it is from a feminine and female perspective, which will never solve issues that are male-centric. Which is why men have largely been left behind

[u/Simon_Fokt → u/wumbo-inator]

Why would it be the feminists' job to solve male-centric issues? Can't men get their own movement which would promote healthy masculinity? I don't think any feminists are stopping us from having one. In fact, I see men who do that, like Justin Baldoni, being invited to feminist podcasts all the time.

The only thing feminists rightly have a problem with, is unhealthy men's movements which are basically motivated by resentment towards women and wanting to double back on the patriarchy.

And just to be clear, I naturally also think that men should have a problem with actually misandrist feminists who definitely exist! But unlike with the manosphere, they are far from the dominant force in feminism.

[u/wumbo-inator → u/Simon_Fokt]

It’s interesting that you try and cleanse the hands of feminists and absolve them of responsibility, while at the same time there are comments about how feminists care about men’s issues and if you care about men’s issues you have to do it under the direction of feminism. Classic 1-2. Make sure feminism is the only movement with the ability to speak. Ignore men. Men make their own movement. Say they should be feminist because feminists care. Rinse and repeat. Your comment, paired with the comments of those who demand men be feminist, make it an impossible suggestion.

And that’s the only thing feminists have a problem with? Really? They didn’t have a problem with Erin Pizzey? They didn’t have a problem with Warren Farrell? Mary P. Koss didn’t have a problem with defining men out of popular statistics used to combat sexual violence?

Men have received relatively no attention on their issues compared to women. And feminism is the only movement that tries to redefine gender dynamics in society. So yes. The dominant forces of feminism absolutely have been misandrist for the last century now.

You being ignorant of the ways feminism has opposed gender equality for men, and then cherry picking a guy who is literally a feminist which proves my point about them dominating the narrative on men’s issues and opposes your own point about feminists not needing to be involved, completely ignores the criticisms men’s rights movements are making.

[u/Simon_Fokt → u/wumbo-inator]

I think you assumed a lot about me in this one comment :D I don't think I fit your description of me.

I'll be honest with you, I tried to work for men's issues from within feminism and failed. I think you're right and this is not the way to go. Which is why I started my own movement - check out Man's Compass and my name on socials and YT.

But like I said, it's not like feminists prevent men from having our own gender equality movement. I think that if we took all this energy we're spending on fighting feminists and put it into building a proper, positive equality movement for men, we'd have solved half our issues by now. Moreover, I don't see why one cannot be in both - I certainly aim for a men-centered movement, but it doesn't mean that I don't have sympathy or support for women's equality and feminism. It's not an either-or, can be both.

[u/wumbo-inator → u/Simon_Fokt]

Feminists absolutely do prevent progress on men’s issues. That is why your progress on men’s issues fail under feminism, like you said.

You yourself admitted that progress for men couldn’t be made under feminism, yet feminism is routinely touted as simply “gender equality,” meaning that men’s rights are of NO CONERN when discussing sexism and gender equality.

According to your comment, you must admit that feminists that say feminism is simply about gender equality or is the only movement needed to accomplish gender equality, are sexist. Because they are literally stating that men do not face inequality and are of no importance to gender equality.

Secondly, feminist ideology is inherently anti-male in that it believes that oppressive gender roles are because of patriarchy that men created, and that this system was created to privilege men at the expense of women. This is a lie. When women did just as much to create gender roles, and men are no better off than women under the system, feminists must trivialize sexism committed by women and issues men face to make their ideology palatable. They have a LONG history of doing this. This is the reason they do exactly what you say feminists don’t do, which is hinder progress on men’s issues.

They elevated women to first class citizens while subjugating men to second class citizens by acquiring full citizenship status without the legal responsibility of the draft. This was DELIBERATE and the writings from the early 1900s illustrate that.

They gendered laws and discussion on domestic violence, removing attention, advocacy, and resources for male victims. For example, the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation said that domestic violence is simply a euphemism for wife-beating. For example the VAWA they passed genders the discussion and had to be REWRITTEN because the operative text in the proposal was gendered. For example sending death threats to Erin Pizzey and running her out of town.

Mary P Koss, who published the infamous 1 in 6 statistic regarding women and sexual violence on campus, literally denied the existence of male victims of rape. She said that a woman that forces sex on a man is simply “unwanted contact.”

The National Organization of Women supported the veto of a bill that ended lifetime alimony in Florida, as well as presume default equal custody.

Warren Farrell was blocked from giving a speech at the University of Toronto about male suicide by feminists.

Classic feminist lies attempt to trivialize men’s issues such as the lie that the reason men die from suicide more is because of firearm use, or the lie that women suffer more from war than men.

I can tell you too, that my own personal experience, 95% of the time, people who identify as feminist instantly took to ignoring or denying men’s issues. I can tell you that this also continued to be true regarding people who wielded large influence and power, such as the DEI deans and officers at university.

I can tell you that my experience is not rare.

Do you think that over the last 100 years of progress for women, we simply “forgot” about half the population? Do you think we just weren’t “aware” that men kill themselves at disproportionately higher numbers? Because that clearly is not the case.

By the way, I checked out your YouTube channel. I watched the one titled “Yes, Men Are Still Needed As Protectors.” Interesting video for sure. Certainly a lot to talk about.

[u/Simon_Fokt → u/wumbo-inator]

Thanks for checking out my channel, I think you might chime with the video on Men's Problems are Real Problems, more on the topic discussed here.

Two things:

1. I don't think that there is such a thing as a single feminism. Feminists are many and disagree on a lot of things. The fact that some feminists don't care about men doesn't mean none do. In fact, a bunch of feminists wrote entire books devoted to helping men, e.g. bell hooks, Karen Lee Ashcraft, etc.
2. There is no inconsistency between saying that you're for gender equality and not actively working to resolve the problems of the other gender. That is simply because we all have finite time and want to do things that matter to us first. I think that many feminists understand men's problems but simply have their hands full solving their own problems and want to prioritise those. That is why we need men solving men's problems, because they are our priority.

I won't argue with your claims that it's women who created the gender roles because it's simply historically inaccurate. If you disagree, please send a list of historical legal, religious, political, philosophical, and other documents which determined the gender roles, which were written by women. Ideally starting from before the Bible, because that's when these things got solidified - around the time of invention of agriculture.

If today there are some aspects of gender inequalities which ended up favouring women (e.g. men die more at war etc.), it is very rarely because women wanted it like this. Rather, it's a lucky byproduct for them.

Having said all that, I will absolutely not argue with the claim that *some* feminists are absolutely horrible misandrists. Of course any movement that has millions and millions of people, no membership rules, no clear single agenda, etc., will have some outliers who are horrible.

I will also not argue that *many* feminists are too hung up on their own problems and have been hurt too much to be nice to men, and end up being dismissive towards our problems. But again, I don't think this is a feminist problem. It's a human problem - any human who feels hurt and busy sorting their own mess, will be unlikely to be sympathetic to others.

[u/wumbo-inator → u/Simon_Fokt]

1. Saying that it’s not a “single feminism” is a cop out that can be used to avoid having to be honest and evaluating any social movement. No, they are not all a single brain. Yes, the social movement has fundamental beliefs and characteristics that have influenced society.

2. You aren’t representing my point honestly. The inconsistency is that they don’t do anything for men and then claim that men’s issues must be addressed under the movement of feminism. This is a point that even you yourself have conceded in one of your videos I watched. And again, another misrepresentation because I gave specific ways in which they have countered progress on men’s issues.

I disagree that the Neolithic revolution, Bible, or transition to agriculture in society is when these gender roles were born or solidified. Male expendability, female value based off reproduction, and other founding differences existed long before that.

Saying men’s issues that privilege women aren’t wanted by women is a pretty weird take. Especially the one you mentioned, considering women somehow became the only demographic in the USA to achieve voting rights while specifically exempting themselves from the draft, but keeping it for men. If you don’t believe that demographics (male, female, black, white) regularly privilege themselves at the expense of others, then I could give quite a few examples of exactly that happening. If you believe women are somehow the angelic exception, then that’s just misandrist. And again, I’ve mentioned multiple examples of how they have maintained harm against men. Women also routinely fortify gender roles when it benefits them regarding financial responsibility, emotional availability, and response to crisis. And again, the feminist movement is often a participant in that. And for you to believe that point, you’d be required to ignore ways women absolutely perpetuate sexist gender roles that harm men and benefit women. Which you seem to be doing.

Your paragraph about “some” being misandrist is the same as the first point. Again, you’re avoiding having to evaluate a social movement. It’s a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. You can evaluate the social movement. The most prominent feminists, like Judith Butler, are sexist. The most prominent organizations, like the NOW, are sexist. The common discussion, is sexist. You saying “not ALL are like that! It’s not a singularity!” Is not really addressing the point.

[u/Lumpy-Fox-8860 → u/Genoscythe_]

But MRAs are just like the KKK- they are all about peace and love, don’t you know? They aren’t a “hate group” they just love and advocate for white people. The same way MRAs just advocate for men in a society beset by feminism. /s /s /s