/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4474185]

What do you guys think about the whole "manosphere" or "redpill" subculture/movement and their ideas? Is it a legitimate response to feminism and current social issues facing Western men? Or are they as feminists claim, just a bunch of angry losers.

For those that have no idea what I'm talking about.

>The Manosphere is a loose collection of blogs, books, and forums about men, male issues, and masculine interests. Covering areas of this vast "dirty snowball" like Pick Up Artists (PUAs) and Game, Traditional and Christian Conservatives, Wise Old Men, Puerarchs, Alpha Dads, Men's Rights Activists, (MRAs), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) and other facets of masculinity in a post-feminist world.

Also this is supposed to be an introduction, or so I've heard.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

I've been reading a couple of these sites for a few days now and I'm not sure what to make of it. There is definitely resentment and anger, but also a lot of shit that makes sense. There also seems to be some weird traditionalist and anti-democratic elements within the community as well - even if most of it seems to be based on gender relations and reclaiming masculinity.

Anyways, thoughts?

[Anonymous No.4474187]

so basically, /pol/ and /r9k/?

(it's dumb as hell and it's not a thing and treating it like a thing is dumb as hell)

[Anonymous No.4474192]

>manosphere
Never heard that one before.

As for the redpill thing, I thought that was confined to places like /pol/, /r9k/, r/mensrights and other MRA/anti-SJW sites

I mean, I can see why they're angry but I think it's very much overblown

[Anonymous No.4474194]

>>4474187
well, ignoring it and saying its not a thing, is probably pretty dumb too

[Anonymous No.4474199]

Sometimes popular feminist writings become parodies of themselves and these people sometimes raise somewhat reasonable concerns about how contemporary society affects relationships. But the vast, vast majority of it is dumb as shit and there is really a lot of blatant unapologetic sexism.

[Anonymous No.4474200]

Some of the men's rights people have pointed out genuine legal disparities and downsides to men's traditional social roles, but mostly the things being described are the male equivalent of internet feminism. By that I mean it's emotionally or tribally driven garbage.

[Anonymous No.4474201]

>>4474192
I was thinking more like the subreddit
http://reddit.com/r/theredpill

Which is pretty much just gender issues from a very radical masculinist perspective.

I know the term "red pill" is used for other things like /pol/ and right winger stuff. But I'm mainly thinking about the gender thing.

[Anonymous No.4474205]

>>4474201
Whenever you have a movement there will always be a backlash. It's like Newton's 3rd Law applied to society. The internet enabled 3rd wave feminism/SJWs also enables members of the backlash to come together and bitch about feminism/SJWs. That's all it is, I think.

[Anonymous No.4474208]

>>4474199
>>4474200
There's definitely an adversarial sexism underneath it, but I've found a lot of their arguments pretty convincing. Especially when dealing with marriage, in fact I'm pretty much convinced never to marry at this point.

[Anonymous No.4474220]

This isn't literature in any fucking way, get out of here promoting your religious movement.

[Anonymous No.4474227]

>>4474220
these are books written about it....

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4474236]

It's scared conservative's plan B.

[Anonymous No.4474243]

>>4474227

who cares? You don't want to discuss literature, you're shilling for an ideology.

[Anonymous No.4474244]

It consists of pathetic individuals who either can't get laid or have gotten themselves into situations that only a complete moron could manage, both types try to pass the blame for their own problems.

[Anonymous No.4474250]

>>4474227
>there are books written about video games
>let's discuss video games

[Anonymous No.4474252]

>>4474185
From what little you've said about (and all I know) it it seems pretty reactionary to me. Some kind of last twitch of the dying old school thought of masculinity as the lines begin to blur between what makes a man a "man" and a woman a "woman".

Its somewhat bothersome, Im more interested in seeing legitimate issues brought up about general gender inequality and the expectations given to men and women about their roles as "masculine" or "feminine".

In my mind the problem isn't oppression of women or oppression of men, its the oppression of each other and ourselves which has used gender as part of our set of tools.

[Anonymous No.4474288]

>>4474185
The ravings of /pol/ is psychosis, not culture.

[Anonymous No.4474298]

>>4474252
wow that was sure deep brah

[Anonymous No.4474300]

>>4474185
i think anything interesting they had to say has already been said and at this point the entire 'community' is just a bunch of scam artists leeching off each other and their retarded followers

and the terms 'manosphere' and 'red pill' are retarded and cringeworthy imo

[Anonymous No.4474312]

>>4474300
I agree, this whole thing would be a lot less cringe inducing if they didn't use terms like that.

[Anonymous No.4474320]

Absolutely worthless.

[Anonymous No.4474328]

>>4474312
what's wrong with red pill?

[Anonymous No.4474337]

>>4474328
it's basically the same as calling people 'sheeple' because you're saying they've been brainwashed

in essence red pill means 'stop believing what society tells you to believe and start believing what I tell you to believe'

[Anonymous No.4474340]

I strongly suspect that this whole "movement" is designed to misinform desperate young men and functionally remove them from the gene pool.
One of their central "teachings" is basically "be mean to women, if you're a real man, you should abuse them." I can't see how that would do anything but ruin the poor saps' chances.

[Anonymous No.4474348]

they are a bunch of angry depressed losers who make elaborate pseudo-scientific bullshit to explain why they don't have sex. remind me of otto weininger

[Anonymous No.4474351]

>>4474328
It's a reference to the Matrix of all things
Also has that tangy conspiracy flavor

[Anonymous No.4474352]

It's a purely expected and normal reaction to the incorporation of feminism into traditional culture, the death of the old-fashioned "manly" jobs in the developed world (working class, low-skill), the quickening pace of technological development (and the people it leaves behind), the death of old conventions of "manliness" in favor of more streamlined gender-neutral roles, and the newly found acceptance of androgyny inside certain circles.

These are very big changes, happening quickly, and while not completely new (think Industrial Revolution and Luddite pushback), they cause resentment. So people vent. They pick what's closest, most prominent, and they take a hammer to it.

Of course it's not completely violent and hateful: you also other manifestations of that "movement" in places like fashion (the rise of workwear and glorification of old-fashioned americana from "simpler" times), the media, other places too.

It's an interesting phenomenon, but still much to be studied remains.

[Anonymous No.4474355]

>>4474185

The manosphere is a convenient bogeyman for hyper-militant SJWs who need a convenient adversary figure to decry so that their martyr complex is satisfied.

There's plenty of manchildren sure, and there are definitely legitimate critics of the absurd caricature that "social justice" has become, but there's no cohesive subculture. It's just disparate groups, and most of them are as stupid and close-minded as the SJWs they bicker with.

It's just a variety of responses to the SJW phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.4474361]

>>4474185
>in a post-feminist world

They meant feminist. Post-feminist is something entirely different.

[Anonymous No.4474368]

I don't like either group. They are making gender into a bug issue where it does not need to be a thing. Both side is obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.4474370]

>>4474355
Having decided to believe you are serious, I'm really amused by your post. Can't you see the irony in what you are saying? "MRA don't exist, it's just a scapegoat created by SJW." I'm sure if you said that to certain people (if they could respond coherently), they would say "there is no 'SJW phenomenon', that's just a conspiracy theory made up by reactionary men who are afraid of feminism and feel like they need to try to marginalize it."

In general I appreciate the sentiment that there aren't usually organized, conspiratorial "groups" behind trends. So of course I think you're right about MRAs being disparate and disorganized manchildren. But I just want to make sure you realize that the same is true about SJWs too.

[Anonymous No.4474389]

>>4474368
Both sides of the Civil Rights Movement were obnoxious too. Let's assume that you find lynch-mobs and clansmen and rednecks beating up kids to be obnoxious--we'll take that for granted. But the activists on the "right" side of history had to make a splash to be heard as well. Maybe you'd be annoyed that the national guard is being deployed to your school because some black girl's daddy felt the need to demand equal protection under the law. Maybe you'd be annoyed that people are marching in the street or silently demonstrating inside restaurants every day in your town. Would you say "They're making race into a big issue when I'd rather it just not be a thing."?

I think it's tempting to say things like what you said because it seems very levelheaded and even "wise." It seems like a "middle path." But if injustice exists, it's not. What if one believes there is no injustice? Even then, how can you decide that, how can you know that without someone or some group beginning to discuss the issue publicly?

I think it's better to have an opinion. You can support civil rights while also opposing the black panthers--that's a valid opinion just like supporting feminist goals while opposing radical social "justice."

[Anonymous No.4474403]

>>4474389
>You can support civil rights while also opposing the black panthers--that's a valid opinion just like supporting feminist goals while opposing radical social "justice."
not really, it just makes you short sighted and naive

do you really think they'll stop after you've given them an inch?

[Anonymous No.4474418]

>>4474403
Who are they? Maybe "you" and "them" actually belonged in the same category all along, and helping what you thought was them was really helping you and yours.

I'm not promoting any view point, mind you. Just saying that it's wiser to have an opinion, or admit that you don't, than denounce those who do simply for thinking publicly.

[Anonymous No.4474425]

>>4474389
> The liberal tries to become an arbitrator, but he is incapable of solving the problems. He promises the oppressor that he can keep the oppressed under control; that he will stop them from becoming illegal (in this case illegal means violent). At the same time, he promises the oppressed that he will be able to alleviate their suffering - in due time. Historically, of course, we know this is impossible, and our era will not escape history.

>The most perturbing question for the liberal is the question of violence. The liberals initial reaction to violence is to try to convince the oppressed that violence is an incorrect tactic, that violence will not work, that violence never accomplishes anything. The Europeans took America through violence and through violence they established the most powerful country in the world. Through violence they maintain the most powerful country in the world. It is absolutely absurd for one to say that violence never accomplishes anything.
...................
>Now, I think the biggest problem with the white liberal in America, and perhaps the liberal around the world, is that his primary task is to stop confrontation, stop conflicts, not to redress grievances, but to stop confrontation. And this is very clear, it must become very, very clear in all our minds. Because once we see what the primary task of the liberal is, then we can see the necessity of not wasting time with him. His primary role is to stop confrontation. Because the liberal assumes a priori that a confrontation is not going to solve the problem. This of course, is an incorrect assumption. We know that.

http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/liberation-strategy/33870-pitfalls-liberalism-stokely-carmichael-kwame-ture.html

[Anonymous No.4474437]

>>4474425
>The liberal

That's how you know not to take them seriously. They speak as if there is a general consensus among the left leaning. Their arguments are entirely written in response to straw man arguments or the poplar opinions of the stupid and under-educated.

[Anonymous No.4474448]

>>4474425
I'm not sure who this is directed at, if anyone, but it addresses the point of what I'm saying. It's unwise to detest anything that causes conflict simply because it made you uncomfortable.

I disagree with the concept of "the liberal" though. I'd like to introduce this person to eco-terrorists, radical vegans, etc. Someone once said "it is conceivable that an act of terrorism could reduce the amount of violence in the world. Therefore a person who is opposed to violence would not be opposed to this terroristic act."

[Anonymous No.4474478]

>>4474185
Ive yet to run into any self proclaimed member of the "manosphere" who can even express a coherent idea through their weird angry ranting.

Maybe there is something behind all the buzzwords and general butthurt, and maybe the homeless guy outside the liqour store is actually trying to express some great revolution in neuroscience when he tells me about the brain ghosts who are stealing his erections.

We will never know.

[Anonymous No.4474479]

>>4474403
Because seeing any side of any argument as some black or white monochrome is the height of wisdom.

[Anonymous No.4474481]

>people actually think there is an existent thing in the world called "traditional culture"

Tradition is either an eternal continuity, synonymous with time, or it is a reference to a social boogeyman. I'm sorry, /pol/, but those are your only two choices.

[Anonymous No.4474498]

A group of utter morons, using fear tactics to try and coerce other morons to join them.
Also not /lit/, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4474509]

>>4474340
>I strongly suspect that this whole "movement" is designed to misinform desperate young men and functionally remove them from the gene pool.
That's exactly what I've started to think too, that their goal is actually to mentally ruin easily influenced young men who don't socialize that much so they're easy targets, the internet is like a god send to them.