The “manosphere” is getting more toxic as angry men join the incels

EvilLothar · 2020-02-07T18:01:32+00:00

Men have every right to be angry in today's culture.

xNOM · 2020-02-07T19:27:01+00:00

The “manosphere,” as it is known, is divided into four broad groups. “Men’s right’s activists” (MRAs) claim that family law and social institutions discriminate against men.

Ok. That's... actually halfways accurate.

“Men going their own way” (MGTOW) take this feeling of grievance further, arguing that society can’t be “amended”; they often avoid women, blaming them for their problems.

Er... what? I don't think they blame women. They blame the gynocentric system.

“Pick-up artists” (PUAs), meanwhile, date and harass women; they believe society is “feminizing” men.

LOL they always fuck this one up.

And then there are the incels, the most potentially violent of the group. Incels abide by the “black pill,” a belief that women use their sexual power to dominate men socially. For that, incels want revenge.

This is just... false.

So. 1 for 4. Not bad.

xNOM · 2020-02-07T19:29:37+00:00

The team’s analysis showed that speech in the most extreme manosphere groups on Reddit, known as subreddits, was far more hateful than the speech of a random sample of Reddit users, and more on the wavelength of fringe far-right hate groups like those that frequent the social network Gab.

Well you know the thing about "hate speech." Everyone's definition of it is different. I bet r/feminism never showed up on their radar.

EDIT: the article has a link to the research article here.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.07600.pdf

Arxiv is not peer-reviewed. But the papers uploaded here are often published later in real journals.

Apparently, they used Google's "Perspective API" to search for "toxicity."

Also they decide to dump on Warren Farrell. Jesus.

Many of the figures at the forefront of the Men’s Rights Movements were once associated with second-wave feminism; Warren Farrell, for example, led a men’s group within the National Organization for Women. He then, in 1993, wrote the Myth Of Male Power [22]. This book became a fundamental text to Men’s Rights Activists, claiming that men, not women, are systematically disadvantaged in modern society. Farrell’s work has repeatedly been criticized as simplistic and insensitive to women’s struggle for equality [8, 45].

Lethn · 2020-02-07T22:04:50+00:00

At this point I'm beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be a class action lawsuit of some kind against these groups doing this 'research'. Forget the misogyny accusations, that's too vague, but the fact that they keep claiming the subreddits are using 'hateful' language is fucking dumb.

I think they're a few articles away from openly declaring us anti-women terrorists. They're not that stupid though, they know if they do that it will open themselves up to legal action, so they're keeping it nice and vague to try and scare people with their propaganda.

I bet their research is absolutely shit and it's just a bunch of keyword searches as well that don't mean anything.

stentorian46 · 2020-02-07T18:13:08+00:00

men don't get angry for no reason.

mgtowolf · 2020-02-07T18:37:19+00:00

Archive link, get woke go broke

rabel111 · 2020-02-08T02:44:23+00:00

This is garbage hit job research by misandrist academics with massive bias and too much time on their hands, making unsupported assumptions based on fairly uninformative data.

The study shows sexist bias in the opening paragraph of the report, referring to men’s rights subs as “fringe online communities ...... orchestrating harassment campaigns and spreading extremist ideologies on the Web.” This entrenched sexist bias is further exhibited in the entirely negative framing of the MRA, INCEL and MGTOW group characteristics and the inclusion of PUA and INCEL groups with legitimate men’s right forums. The obvious and extreme negativity towards men reveal the objective of the study is to validate the sexist views of the researchers rather than objectively interpret the data.

The study assumes that all users posting on the various subs are men supporting views expressed on the sub, who do or will exhibit the extreme negative characteristics attributed by the researchers. There is no acknowledgment that some posters on the various subs may be critical of the sub, or some hate speech originates in posts by radical feminists abusing users or brigading/baiting users.

The study also assumes that the MRA, INCEL, PUA and MGTOW groups exist as varying points of misogyny on a single continuum, presenting men’s subs as more or less, but universally misogynist.

Overall, the only journals that will publish this kind of sexist garbage are those with entrenched cultures of misandry. That may be the only valid conclusion that can be derived from the study.

iainmf · 2020-02-08T02:12:31+00:00

Here is the definition of toxic from the Google API they used to measure toxicity

What's toxic?

This model was trained by asking people to rate internet comments on a scale from "Very toxic" to "Very healthy" contribution. Toxic is defined as... "a rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion."

IHAVETHEHIGHGROUND_3 · 2020-02-08T18:54:46+00:00

Give us a reason not to

TheBrawltender · 2020-02-09T12:33:52+00:00

You know you can't handle rejection when you equate men avoiding women to an act of terrorism.

McGauth925 · 2020-02-10T22:43:38+00:00

If you look at women's sub reddits, you'll find LOTS of female toxicity. There are some men who are completely prejudiced against women, just as there are some women completely prejudiced against men. The culture, overall, favors women, and condones misandry, all the while it condemns men and misogyny. And, more misogyny occurs as a result.

Sarm11111 · 2020-02-21T01:14:38+00:00

I wouldn’t say more toxic, but I would say that men are waking up to the realities in western countries and doing the math, it just ain’t worth it. There is literally nothing in marriage that men benefit from, and with the cards stacked against men, they know that the only way to win is not to play.

tenchineuro · 2020-02-07T20:46:29+00:00

From the paper...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.07600.pdf
5 Toxicity in the Manosphere Next, we study the spread of hate speech in the Manosphere and how the prevalence of hate speech compares to other mainstream and fringe Web communities. To do so, we rely on Google’s Perspective API [52], which provides a toxicity score assessing how rude/aggressive/hateful a comment is. More specifically, we run all posts from all forums as well as the subreddits throught he API and obtain the toxicity score for each post. We use the“Severe Toxicity” score provided since it more accurately rates the positive use of profanity [52]

Anybody know anything about Google Perspective? It seems to be the sole basis for this.

azazelcrowley · 2020-02-08T00:02:28+00:00

Radicalization is a normal and unfortunate part of a civil rights groups demands going unmet for long enough that members begin to seek more extreme explanations for lack of progress. We simply have to hope that the MRM can recruit faster than turnover occurs.

If we'd ignored MLK a decade or two longer, there'd be a "Radicalization" toward violence among civil rights activists too. Indeed acknowledging this fact is one reason why progress occurred; the alternative was an eventual race war. You can't mistreat people in perpetuity when they've caught on to the fact you're doing it. Colonies that weren't left peacefully, were left after military conflict.

Those who do not make peaceful revolution possible, make violent revolution inevitable.

Uniquely we are in a situation where there is a catch 22. There is no "Violent MRM", no faction saying; "If our demands are not met, we should murder people until they are.". This is because such a faction would be used as justification to suppress us further and to mischaracterize our movement.

That frustration, which all civil rights groups have experienced in the past, is instead channeled into radicalization of *goals* as well as methods.

It may be worth a dialogue about modern societies hostility to violent movements and the advocacy of them. If it turns out to be the case that suppression of all forms of these movements produces things like;

"If we can't get even basic healthcare reform because our enemy is being unfair, and we're not allowed to say, 'Do it or we'll riot', then I guess i'll just become a revolutionary communist and support killing everyone rich", or then it may be an overall negative for society.

MRAs radicalizing into Incels may be doing so because there is no "MRA's, but with riots and violence" faction. This doesn't actually produce less violence. Just violence towards less justifiable goals. Instead of "Well, we're going to riot outside the UN until amber heard is sacked because we know they're not going to listen to our argument or treat us fairly in the media" it'll be; "I guess i'll go on a shooting spree at a university because of a vague hatred of women".

Given that MRAs are also more "Active" in terms of desire to influence society, while Incels are traditionally "passive" in their outlook to a greater extent, the radicalization of MRAs resulting from a lack of progress on mens issues may produce a situation where Incel spaces become 'More toxic' in terms of radicalized MRAs pushing for more "Activity" and action on their beliefs.

ifelsedowhile · 2020-02-08T04:48:56+00:00

maybe I'm being sexist, but the reason why more people join the "incels" is because they are not getting laid and I wouldn't put the blame solely on them for it.

stentorian46 · 2020-02-08T05:13:10+00:00

Hey I don't know much about "incels" - but as as a feminist (albeit a "dissident" feminist) I do think women will sometimes use sexual power to dominate men. It is a very self-defeating thing for women to do, and sometimes dangerous.

I suppose it happens because -especially when you're a young, heterosexual woman - you do have, potentially, tremendous sexual power ... so long as you don't actually have sex.

I'm older now but when I was very young I remember feeling very nervous and self-conscious about all this sexual power I was supposed to have. And then as I matured, I got it all wrong. I'd think I was having fascinating conversations with men because they actually wanted to talk to me: had to learn that sometimes (not always) men just feign interest to get laid.

Anyway my point is that often all this supposed "sexual power" tends to go kaput once you've put out. It's a Faustian bargain...

That said many young women end up with veritable male fan clubs using "pussy power". so much contrivance and fakery involved, though.

Too much hard work, really!

Title	The “manosphere” is getting more toxic as angry men join the incels
Author	tonyespresso
Upvotes	10
Comments	47
Date	February 7, 2020 5:58 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/f0e5id/the_manosphere_is_getting_more_toxic_as_angry_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-manosphere-is-getting-more-toxic-as-angry-men.1200785 https://theredarchive.com/post/1200785

Comments