Karen Straughan saying the Manosphere has to hang together, otherwise we all hang separately.

[–]baskandpurr[🍰] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sheko404 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]_skip_ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sheko404 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Somebody needs to take a deep breath.

Fight after what?

After we've stopped letting men get attacked for being men and we've gotten the bigotry that shows itself on a daily basis in check.

After TRP philosophy is mainstream thought?

Right, the Red Pillers and their mind control machines. Has anybody seen my aluminum hat?

After PUAs spread their nonsense far and wide?

It won't spread unless it's effective (Which I don't think it is) and even then. So what? Are you so much of a coward you have to protect people from ideas? You can't offer your opinions and let others decide for themselves?

What's "after" when we don't agree or have the same goals?

After is when MRAs have no major issues left and are dealing with minor nonsense (i.e. The equivelant of feminist degradation down to manspreading) and TRPs can ply their PUA trade without risking being imprisoned because a woman regretted sex the next day (or week, or month, etc.).

They're just PUAs, what the fuck are they gonna do burn down your house in the name of their god?

[–]dangerousopinions 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_skip_ 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ashlaaaaay 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fidelbogen 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]eaton80[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nephanor 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not a term I will ever use. People lump in anyone who sees the problems with society as it is, and includes people who abuse the problems for their own gain (PUAs), people who despise those who game the system (Anti-PUAs) people who just don't want to be part of any system (MGTOW), people who actually hate women (REAL misogynists), and third party trolls into the group which actually WANTS to change the system (MRAs). The "manosphere" is a term now used by the media and the real hate mongers to smear those who work to change things for the better, by saying they belong to a group with has a bunch of people who don't want it to change. Before I accept "manosphere" the feminists better accept "femisphere" which includes ALL their radicals, the "kill 90% of men" the political lesbians, Femen, their actual misandrists, the pro life AND pro choice crowd, along with actual equity feminists. If we have to have conflicting groups in ours, they do as well. Good luck getting them to accept it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The "manosphere" was actually a self-described label by a group of interlinked blogger/wordpress blogs which grew out of the pua scene. It's actually iirc where the use of the term "red pill" originated. It's unfortunate, and I guess you're right, I should probably stop using that term (even if it's what they want to be used). I guess it's kind of like how all those radical feminists claimed to speak for all women, even though they clearly didn't.

There definitely is a "femosphere" of interlinked blogger/wordpress blogs and from what I've seen it's 100% batshit crazy. We're talking tin-foil hat levels of shit being spewed about men, the attitudes of the most extreme misogynists out there being unironically portrayed as being the view of the majority of men (or even the majority of society), I actually feel sorry for them living in such a delusion of false persecution. It's orders of magnitude worse than tumblr/srs.

[–]dangerousopinions 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There is absolutely nothing about "egalitarianism" that says one must believe in pure cultural construction of gender, that's a fucking strawman argument if I've ever seen one.

However, the tendency within TRP to make unsupported claims as to what is and isn't biologically influenced is dumb, potentially harmful and uninformed.

but don't run around attacking the men who seek to better themselves and their chances for either intimate relationships or independent living in the current environment.

Yeah, better themselves by reenforcing gender roles and making uninformed claims about male and female psychology and behaviour.

Also "attacking men"? Pulling a page from the feminist handbook there? Who is attacking men? Nobody is attacking men, STEM_logic is being critical of a philosophy. Unless TRP is now a synonym for men, that's bullshit.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]_skip_ 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I believe that morality is the glue which holds society together. I believe fostering cooperativeness is vital to the maintenance and advancement of civilisation. I think selfishness and hierarchicalism are the antithesis of this.

The redpill philosophy is openly amoral. It is probably the most accepting place of hierarhicalism which exists online (not that redpillers are the most hierarchial people online, it's just that combination of hierarchicalism and self-honesty about their hierarchicalism which sets them apart). In fact as far as I'm aware the term "red pill" arose not just out of accepting "hard-wired major sex differences" but also accepting "the hierarchical reality of how social systems will always be". The red pill openly promotes selfish social strategies rather than working towards a more cooperative world.

Sure, perfect morality might never happen, hierarchicalism might never fully go away. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to make society as egalitarian as possible. There is a mountain of evidence showing that more equal societies (in terms of income equality - but I would imagine other forms of equality too) just work better than less equal ones on every health/social measure, because they just have a more cooperative populace. I remember reading a prominent pua who visited Denmark warning other puas not to bother, because the "alpha" behaviour which works in the USA is basically seen as too assholish/arrogant. Does this mean Danish guys are getting less sex? I doubt it, they can get away without having to be as hierarchical in the behaviour because Danish women as less hierarchical in their behaviour too. Is Denmark more feminist than the USA? Sweden is for sure, but I'm not sure about Denmark, their attitudes on drugs, prostitution etc. are very different from the authoritarian "progressive" attitudes which are big in Sweden. Another example is the stereotype of Canadians constantly apologising (and of Americans being rude). Do Canadian guys get laid less? I doubt it, but I'd imagine they don't have to push for dominance to the same level, because Canada just has a more egalitarian, less hierarchical culture (which is not to say it's perfectly egalitarian, but it is better).

Now onto sex differences :

As I'm sure redpillers will agree, a huge amount of women will swap their support for sex-differences/equality depending on what selfishly suits women (and feminism is a huge enabler of this behaviour). What this tells us is that gender norms and ideas of sex differences are selfishly abuseable.

Do sex differences exist?

Average sex differences do, with a lot of overlap between the sexes. There might be a genetic predisposition behind these, but what sets humans apart from other animals is our ability to adapt, and in the right culture we might be able to reduce them to the point of being negligible.

Are there major sex differences which are just too hardwired to ever go away?

Possibly. The major sex difference most likely to be true is, as you said, emotions around sex. This point of evolutionary divergence has existed since organisms with different sexes first arose. But you also have to remember that human society has been founded on men and women cooperating together - for the good of the group/family - and this has existed for probably a million years. So I think there does exist a common gender neutral middle ground (even if it does require members of both sexes to be less selfish). So would this difference mean we can't have a fully gender neutral society?

No. All it means is the sexes have to compromise, and find a common middle-ground. That way we can continue to hold a single moral standard for the sexes in every realm, which might involve different areas of particular challenge for each sex, but will limit victimisation of the opposite sex and foster cooperativeness by getting us working - as much as is possible - off the same page.

What happens if mra ideas go mainstream but a fully gender neutral society never happens? If men and women continue to be socially/sexually rewarded for different things and thus continue to face different pressures? Well at least if women own up to the fact that they're just as responsible for gender norms as men, that men (on average) don't hold more power than them (on average), the pervasive character assassination of men and masculinity will end. Redpillers (with their open amoralism and their endorsement of strong major sex differences) are just being exactly the sort of anti-feminists feminists want anti-feminists to be.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've really spent a lot of time thinking about how to reply to you, because there's such a confusion of faulty thinking in your reply that I find it hard to address. To be clear, I don't say that with intent to insult, but I was genuinely shocked when I read your reply, but felt I owed you a response.

Let's start at the very beginning, to which I will devote extra time, because it serves as the foundation of your reply.

I believe that morality is the glue which holds society together.

There is no evidence to suggest this is true. It can reasonably be argued that there are objective moral truths, but these are not the "glue" of society. Instead it is shared culture that holds societies together. Any shared culture always carries moral values with it, and often also encompasses religious values (that is, thoughts and ideas which must not be questioned), but morality? Certainly not. People are as amoral as their culture allows them to be.

I believe fostering cooperativeness is vital to the maintenance and advancement of civilisation.

People cooperate when they have something to gain from it. To be clear, this is not a conscious process for most people. Civilizations arise when the labour power of the average male is harnessed via the assurance that he will be able to carry on his genetic lineage. Otherwise, males don't work to a level other than that necessary to sustain only themselves unless they have an investment in the future - usually children.

I think selfishness and hierarchicalism are the antithesis of this.

Selfishness is a useful trait in certain measures. We continually see that individuals who are regarded as too altruistic become socially shunned. Moreover, without explicit hierarchies, invisible ones emerge as some people are more socially adept than others, some people are more competent than others, and some are better leaders than others.

The redpill philosophy is openly amoral.

Correct. One cannot attach moral value to facts - the fact that the sky is blue has no moral implications. The Red Pill argues that what human females are physically attracted to is not a function of morality, but biology (nature). And thus, amoral.

but also accepting "the hierarchical reality of how social systems will always be". The red pill openly promotes selfish social strategies rather than working towards a more cooperative world.

There's a subtle point you missed here - selfish social strategies, but not at the expense of others. It is OK to put yourself first. It is not OK to stomp on somebody else to make yourself first.

Do you understand, that humans can never and should never make a "gender neutral" society? Such an artificial construct requires enforcement, by which I mean authoritarian violence. There is nothing wrong with both sexes taking equal, but complementary roles without co-ercion. Which is what we have now.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]_skip_ 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]reversememe -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You definitely can change human nature, just not all aspects of it. But that's not really the point The point is that you think you know what is and isn't human nature, and you don't, nobody does in any comprehensive ways. We have some vague clues at this point. To base an entire philosophy on the premise that you know for certain what a man or a woman should be, is stupid and potentially harmful.

Understand, women are attracted to certain male characteristics whether you like it or not.

There is some truth to that, but again, much of it is within the context of a given culture. If you went to a tribal culture, being murderous would attract women. That's clearly not the case in modern western society. You're arguing for a cementing of gender roles which have only existed in one part of the world for a brief period of time. It would be one thing to say "women like confidence", but it doesn't stop there. There is a whole host of unsupported theories presented as fact and enforced in a variety of ways.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]eaton80[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]eaton80[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

there are those who want to disengage but not improve anything though and those people aren't helping

On the contrary. By withdrawing their support from society, they are pushing it towards the point of change - you can only extract from people the resources they have, and you can't threaten to take a man's children if he doesn't have any. Amongst its other functions, feminism is designed to facilitate wealth transfer from men to women and if this is no longer possible, women will eventually turn on feminism when it is no longer benefiting them.

As for Red Pillers, I just don't think the solution to Men's Issues involves trying to get fucked. But that's just my interpretation.

It may not be "the solution", but teaching men to embrace their masculinity will vastly improve their mental health as they come to realize there is nothing wrong with them for having a sex drive, wanting to compete with each other, and seeking recognition for their works.

[–]Anathema_Redditus -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anathema_Redditus -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Anathema_Redditus -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]_skip_ -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And according to a radical feminists, all they believe in is equality. I have been to TRP, I have read the content, I have read the comment threads, I have a pretty good idea of what is being said over there and how it's received and it's not simply "self improvement". Besides, define "self improvement". It's a subjective term, it means different things to different people, much like "equality".

That's "radical"? You disagree with them about whether gender is socially constructed, so they're "radicals" to be cast out? I think not.

What's with this straw man bullshit? I don't believe gendered behaviour is entirely a social construct, nor is it entirely biologically determined. That's not just a belief either, it's a well supported fact. However, when you start getting into the nitty gritty of "this is biology, this is culture" there isn't a lot of objective proof for any of it. The list of things we know is one or the other is pretty short. However TRP is no better than someone who believes in pure social construction in that they both make assumptions and apply them to the real world. When you're talking about fucking with people's behaviours and you have yet to work out what is healthy and unchageable or what is unhealthy and changeable, you're playing with fire. It's irresponsible, it's arrogant and we're not at that point yet. We don't know a lot of these things. Enforcing gender roles as TRP does, based on bad or no information, is no better than trying to completely break them down with bad or no information.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]headless_bourgeoisie 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reversememe 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	Karen Straughan saying the Manosphere has to hang together, otherwise we all hang separately.
Author	eaton80
Upvotes	36
Comments	61
Date	June 5, 2015 8:43 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/38pup9/karen_straughan_saying_the_manosphere_has_to_hang/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/karen-straughan-saying-the-manosphere-has-to-hang.978379 https://theredarchive.com/post/978379

Comments