The best ideas of the “manosphere” with a bonus guide on how to be a patriarchal overlord.
One of the benefits of saying extreme things is you will get extreme responses and the opportunity to learn the opposition’s side fast. I was not saying anything extreme on this blog, and only subtly kowtowing to the status quo, especially in the form of a feminist narrative. I was slowly waking up to the fact I was displaying intellectual dishonesty, and longing for constructive criticism, went off into the so called “manosphere”.
What is the “manosphere”? Well, it is more or less a collection of men’s rights advocates and activists (MRAs), MGTOW, that is men going their own way, pick up artists (PUA) and “masculinists”. Overall it is male perspective driven and disrupts modern feminist narrative.
I had come to my own conclusions about human reproductive strategies through an evolutionary psychology perspective and began to discuss. I found Karen Straughan’s YouTube, a prominent anti-feminist and started looking into the differences in men and women, especially in reproductive strategies and social power.
For me it is mostly about ideas.
There are important issues MRAs hope to address that I am not going to get into here. A google search can pull up many, here is one.
The heart of the issue, and where these specific legal issues are stemming from, is, in my opinion a double-standard stacked on the men’s side. Our environment is safer, requires less labor-intensive work and is set up for most individuals to have the opportunity to gain their own resources. I speculate this is the main determiner on the break from traditional gender roles, however, laws are still protective of women and obligatory to men.
What is needed more than ever is conversations about what those traditional gender roles were and why. What is linked to our natures as human beings and what actually is a social construct? We can see some women as agents, independent and self-sufficient. We can see some men as vulnerable and needing of support. But are female accomplishments, processed in our ape-brains, equal to male ones? Can vulnerable males be seen as anything more than weak, their value based on their utility?
In the following post, I will discuss the best ideas from the manosphere.
1) The importance of enforcing rationality
Most political correctness and censorship is coming from the extreme left in the west today. Social justice warriors talk about privilege as if it is a real, measurable thing you can determine by knowing someone’s race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc. Through affirmative action and quotas, those perceived as less privileged are ideally given the opportunity to go first because they’ve been put last so often in the past. This also runs alongside of the feminist narrative of the oppressive patriarchy.
These viewpoints limit people to stereotypes and tend to create the injustices they were established to “even out”, that is, they create racism and sexism. Being hired because you are a female or an ethnic minority is still sexist and racist, even if benevolent.
As young men become the minority in post-secondary institutions, as they already have, will we use affirmative action to help bring them back aboard? Or was that patriarchy thing damning to the point it’ll take generation of privilege white men before we can consider them human?
Sarcasm aside, the ideas behind these policies are ignorant and short-sighted. With the growing group of the offended, that is people like Anita Sarkeesian calling-out sexist tropes in videogames or feminists freaking out over a scientist’s shirt, there is also a growing group of logic-police. These are, more often than not, coming from the anti-feminist sector of the manosphere and include:
2) There is always a place for meritocracy
There will never be a perfect meritocracy and ultimately, the values have to be plugged into the computer to spit out the high scores. Who decides these values can be problematic, as is the assumption that all people are starting off with the equal opportunity to succeed. However, there is a reality out there, below the concrete of our cities and the illusion of long-term, sustainable resource security. Resources do not fall from the sky, and there is always a place for meritocracy.
Harsh realities of our ancestors have been softened by the benefits of technological innovation. However, even today, some roles require unfeeling meritocracy. For example, if the standard to be a firefighter is the ability to lift and carry a 200lb person and the applicant cannot carry the 200lb person, they probably shouldn’t be hired as a firefighter for their safety, as well as the safety of others. Another example may be a social duty that requires one to stay true to objective reality, such as in journalism or science. If one is biased and prone to emotional responses the natural consequence will be an inability to gain the trust of others and ultimately to fail in this role.
Videogames can be near pure meritocracies. If the player understands what it takes to get the high score, it is simply up to them to cultivate the skills to win. The same thinking goes for sports and teamwork, that is, playing with the team’s strengths and calling out another’s weakness, or making sure your own weakness is being adapted to. None of this is compulsory, but a pre-requisite to getting the desired result. The higher the stakes, the more people instinctually follow suit.
At any given point, we need people succeeding for resource security, for furthering scientific knowledge, and for maintaining civilization. And if we are all on our own, naked in the woods, our ability to accrue resources is subject to our own knowledge, abilities and skills.
There can be no social value in a world with no resource value. Social merit that outgrows the ability for majority to support it through means in reality will eventually destroy itself. Ultimately, this is why the emperor will be seen to have no clothes.
3) Freedom of Information and self-autonomy
MGTOW stands for men going their own way and I liken it to the concept of light being both a particle and a wave (especially in the sense that to define it gets you in trouble). It consists of men choosing to not get married and defining their own roles in society but also makes up a collection of “schools of thought” on human nature, philosophy, male vulnerabilities, and self-improvement.
I believe MGTOW could be spark for much greater things.
As school environments become more protective of sensitivities instead of facilitating free speech more men are opting out. The internet, and YouTube especially in the case of MGTOW, can act as a platform of shared information, leading to transparency and innovation like never before. The debates that can come out of these communities are in stark contrast to the political correctness and post-modernist thought pushed too far on university and college campuses.
“It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
My favorite MGTOWs stress the value of isolating one’s self to make more thoughtful choices. Observing one’s own nature, contemplating personal questions, especially in the realm of mate selection, is helpful to any human. I cannot stress enough the need for freedom to discuss any topic. This seems to go hand in hand with protecting male autonomy and men’s spaces.
I imagine the stoics would do something similar if they were teleported from ancient Greece and had lived experience of today’s social world. For the future, I hope the men and ideas of MGTOW, even if pooled in separate “schools of thought”, transcend modern academia, especially as it becomes harder for your average-man to gain education from institutions.
4) How Modern feminism sees Women as Inadequate Men with Golden Uteri
I am using this description to illustrate hypocrisy that “created equality” seems to generate. In many cases in the past, testosterone trumped in meritocracy, and physical limitations of women were obvious. Men have ten times more testosterone than women, and this results not only in greater physical strength in males, but greater risk-taking.
Men and women are different and unequal. The values we place on particular traits are socially constructed, not the genders themselves.
Paradoxically, feminism places high value on masculine traits, but only when expressed in women and high status men (or patriarchal overlords?). This can be seen in policy and issues brought forward by modern feminists, such as those attempting to encourage more women into STEM fields or politics through affirmative action or lowering previously set standards. These are not met by an equal encouragement for men to go into teaching and nursing. In this path to “equality”, modern feminists have failed to notice men are still occupying most of the “dirty jobs”, like those in trades, construction and resource extraction, yet there is much less perceived “girl power” for women to go into these fields, especially if they are dangerous. However, they still need to be done, and “equality” suspiciously does not seem to apply.
At the same time, there is female entitlement based on reproductive value. This is double stacking on the traditional role. Sexual dimorphism arose in our species for men to subsidize females in protection of their higher reproductive value. Modern feminists seem to only look to the handful of successful men in a meritocracy and demand to be equal to them, and encourage woman to jump the line, while ignoring the higher numbers of male homeless and suicide rates.
At the same time, they feel entitled to male protection. Why, if she can, does she need a he? Are women then inadequate men? Can’t do for self but men should because golden uteri?
5) And finally, How to be a Patriarchal Overlord
I have been working hard in the sandwich-mines for over a year trying to get the patriarchal overlords to notice me. Then I realized men don’t get patriarchy cards sent to them in the mail and in fact they really suck at this thing. Whenever the shitlords get together they never talk about how they plan on taking over the world or how to further oppress the womyns, in fact, they seem even more willing to mentor them.
While they went on and on about sports and videogames, I plotted out how to be a better patriarchal overlord:
Love what you do. Master your desired skill and share your passion. Soon people will call you “lord of ____” or “king of ____” because even if your grandiosity is slightly baked, people will still be more tuned in than if you are indifferent to your life and what you do. Conviction is not the same thing as arrogance. You can always change your mind about certain things, but trust in your personal preferences and loyalty to a goal is what puts the overlord in the patriarchy. 😉
Refuse to be a victim. Always take responsibility for your own happiness or lack thereof. This requires control over your own mind, conquering fears, desires, and facing your own insecurities before they are projected outwards. The best leaders are those who do so by example.
Cultivate traits unique to you in application in social niches. This naturally garners social merit (power) even if your job on a team is a defender instead of the up in-front offensive player. While 1) is internal, and 3) is external, they may end up appearing very similar. If you have some higher value over the group in a particular context, you will gain the most merit in using it to everyone’s advantage.