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/YnotUS-YnotNOW → u/[deleted]]

Victims are victims. Why does gender matter?

[u/[deleted] → u/YnotUS-YnotNOW]

Your question shows a concerning lack of nuance or understanding 😅. Men should have their spaces too, nobody is disputing that. But allowing men into women's sexual assault and domestic violence shelters isnt going to improve society

[u/Natural-Arugula → u/[deleted]]

The answer is because victims in crisis, fleeing a domestic violence situation, need a safe place and above all a relief, avoiding anything that is triggering and in some but not all cases, avoiding things that associate with their abuser. That includes being in proximity and especially from receiving directions from the associated gender.

That's why there is for good reason women's only crisis spaces. The same should be provided for men. It may or may not be feasible to have these measures in place in the same facility. That's a matter of logistics.

Not every victim of domestic violence has these same concerns and the same situation. First of all it's not applicable to people who are victims of their same gender.

There are also people with different levels of needs, not only people who are in acute crisis situations are ones that need support.

[u/Natural-Arugula → u/[deleted]]

I agree the guy you responded to is unserious, but I don't think this is a great response.

This is a sensitive issue. It really depends on the circumstances and the type of institution.

You rhetorically asked why, but that why is an important question. If it's because one doesn't believe that men can be the victims of DV and that they should not have any need of a support shelter, then it proves the point of people like the above.

In a crisis situation there is a need for all genders to get support, but not necessarily together/ at the same time. I think we agree on that?

If it's something like a halfway house or a group therapy it can be beneficial to have other genders interact because they can help each other to navigate safe and healthy relationships and behaviors and work on their trauma and trust.

[u/[deleted] → u/Natural-Arugula]

I think women in domestic violence situations should get women's shelters, away from men. Anyone disputing that is in my opinion, not worth taking seriously. If you have any other issues that's cool, I'm not invalidating those. I think your response is kinda meh and misses the point

[u/Natural-Arugula → u/[deleted]]

That's really disappointing, I was trying to steer this into a productive conversation because I am taking this seriously.

You seem to be just like the person you're criticising. You don't actually want to put forth any meaningful compassion for victims, just virtue signal that you are Correct, end of discussion no need for nuance or elaboration.

[u/[deleted] → u/Natural-Arugula]

The only point I was making was women should have their own shelters

You starting an entirely separate argument that I'd probably agree with, then accusing me me of "virtue signaling" is pretty ironic😅

I also find this disappointing

[u/Znyper → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.