RSS

What’s wrong with the word ‘manosphere’?

27 Oct

Here at Patriactionary, we consider our blog to be more or less at the intersection of the manosphere and the tradosphere / orthosphere, in terms of our interests and foci (‘focuses’ for the Latin-challenged) as ‘Red Pill’ patriarchal reactionary traditionalist Christian men.

Apparently, some people in the manosphere have tired of that name (see here and here), finding it somehow ‘gay’.

Really?  How sad, that sodomites have so captured the word ‘man’ that any association with it somehow seems homo in the minds of some.

As for the supposed replacement ‘cocktagon’, actually referencing the male organ sounds way more queer than just referring to our common masculinity in the term ‘manosphere’, no?  It does to me, as does ‘cockosphere’…

I agree that neither ‘androsphere’ nor ‘homosphere’ are suitable (they’re both worse, and even more queer-sounding)…

Why not just leave well enough alone?

Stop being over-sensitive, you ‘manosphere’-term haters!  We’re men; why not acknowledge that in our name?

Sheesh.

While I’m on the subject, are men who take an interest in dressing well, cooking, the arts, etc., any less manly than those who prefer professional sports?  Because the fear of the term ‘manosphere’ strikes me as the sort of hyper-masculine bullshit that gets people who like the arts labelled ‘theater-fags’, even if they’re straight.  Why can’t straight guys like theatre, the arts, even dancing, the way true ‘renaissance men’ did in times past?

Why let the outside world dictate what is and isn’t ‘masculine’?  Why can’t ‘real men’ eat quiche or drink wine?

Really, that attitude is all a case of realmannspracht, and if the manosphere is to be about anything, shouldn’t we free ourselves from allowing outsiders to tell us what constitutes a ‘real man’?  Especially, shouldn’t Christians take their cue from Scripture?  All men are real men, simply due to being created in the image of God, thus bearing the Imago Dei.  That’s what a real man is, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Or tell you we shouldn’t identify as men, in terms of that phrase ‘manosphere’, nor like things other men don’t.

Fuck that.  I’ll like what I like, and not like what I don’t like (e.g. I’m not much for sports), and I don’t care what others think of me for my tastes / preferences.  What could be more manly than not caring what others think?

Why not NOT let queers capture terms like ‘man’, NOR let others dictate what is and what isn’t ‘truly’ manly?  Why not tell both of them to get stuffed – and go your own way… 🙂

(Like me using emoticons, or linking Cracked articles in my linkfests; not toeing any party line, am I?  Hmmm.)

Advertisements
 
33 Comments

Posted by on October 27, 2012 in Masculinity

 

33 responses to “What’s wrong with the word ‘manosphere’?

  1. Dr. Eric Stratton

    October 27, 2012 at 12:12 am

    Though I agree with your points, my rants are not to be taken seriously, except when they are. The linked example is one or the other.

    NB – I’ve always found the term wanting, but that is likely more because I have never been comfortable with a defined association than because of the designation. Men are not monolith even as circumstances have caused us to feign that we are.

     
  2. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 12:17 am

    “Though I agree with your points, my rants are not to be taken seriously, except when they are. The linked example is one or the other.”

    Fair enough. 🙂

    “NB – I’ve always found the term wanting, but that is likely more because I have never been comfortable with a defined association than because of the designation. Men are not monolith even as circumstances have caused us to feign that we are.”

    I find the term sounds funny; it’s an awkward construction, and ‘manosphere’ could sound like a sphere made with hands (?!), but it’s what we’ve got, and is better, IMO, than ‘Roissysphere’, since Roissy is no longer as central as he once was to it. So for want of a better term, ‘manosphere’ it is…

    I know what you mean, though, about the defined association; but I think the term ‘manosphere’ is loose enough to cover everything from PUAs to MRAs to MGTOW to patriarchal Christians, and everything in between, without papering over our very real distinctions and differences.

     
  3. Chris

    October 27, 2012 at 12:57 am

    Will Focii has two iis (I think)

    If we cannot us manosphere, and acceptbing tha butthexosphere was a joke per Eric’s comment, what else? Androsphere is pretentious, Androphilia is ghey…

    Besides, the idea of using man is to keep the stupid frollettes out.

     
  4. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 1:05 am

    No, Chris; it doesn’t; see here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(geometry)

    Anyway, yeah, the problem with ‘androsphere’ is indeed that it sounds too much like ‘androphilia’, which is Jack Donovan’s term for gays-who-don’t-identity-with-gay-politics-and-victim-culture-and-effeminacy… A useful term, that, in its own right; but ‘androsphere’ sounds too similar…

    ‘Homosphere’ sounds directly gay, since ‘homo’ can mean either ‘same’ or ‘man’…

    Yes, we want to keep them out, certainly.

     
  5. chesterpoe

    October 27, 2012 at 2:12 am

    How about Apollosphere? The Greek God Apollo was quite masculine, symbolizing many manly virtues such as strength, courage, wisdom, moderation, virtue, and order. However, Manosphere is not actually bad; it makes the point quite clear.

     
  6. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 2:15 am

    @ CP: I like it, yet it’s a bit pagan (though old pagan rather than neopagan, so not all bad, of course), and not clear enough for my liking.

    Manosphere is indeed imperfect, but is clear enough for general usage and understanding, IMO.

     
  7. The Man Who Was . . .

    October 27, 2012 at 2:20 am

    “Really, that attitude is all a case of realmannspracht, and if the manosphere is to be about anything, shouldn’t we free ourselves from allowing outsiders to tell us what constitutes a ‘real man’? Especially, shouldn’t Christians take their cue from Scripture? All men are real men, simply due to being created in the image of God, thus bearing the Imago Dei. That’s what a real man is, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”

    I don’t have any problem with realmannspract, as it is called. Men, as opposed to women, have to actually do something worthy to be considered a good specimen of manhood. Someone who doesn’t do that is a bit less of a man. (That doesn’t mean that basic moral standards don’t apply to women, just that expectations outside of those basic morals will be fairly minimal.)

    You are right though that we shouldn’t let outsiders dictate exactly what it is men are expected to do.

     
  8. Keoni Galt

    October 27, 2012 at 2:25 am

    My mild distaste for the term is simply because it evokes the feel of cheesy, commercialized, marketing driven realmanspracht….

    I’m a MAN!

    In the MAN0sphere!

    Everytime I read that slang word, I hear a cheesy commercial announcer’s voice in my head.

    Like that guy who does all the UFC promotional commercials. Deep and gravelly.

    MANOSPHERE.

    lozlzolzol

    The one reason why I DO like the term, is that it arose and got adopted almost spontaneously .

    I’ve been surfing these fringes of teh interwebs for 6+ years now, and I can’t recall who first came up with it, but it first got it’s traction in the hey day of IMF’s comment threads.

    it just seems like all of a sudden everyone was using it. For that reason, it’s a quick and easy way to reference the Red Pill Zone! (I like it WIll…except the whole Red Pill meme is getting overdone….and I write that as one of the biggest offenders! lolzlzolzol).

     
  9. Jay

    October 27, 2012 at 2:31 am

    I will say to them:

    For those offended by the term “manosphere”

    Lolozlozlozl

     
  10. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 2:34 am

    @ Thursday: I don’t at all mind encouraging men to pursue high ideals, but I dislike the idea that our masculinity is somehow predicated upon such, when, if we understand Scripture correctly, our manhood has to do with being created in God’s image. So, I think that even the lazy shiftless slacker who is male is as much a man as one pursuing good and noble things, even though I obviously think more highly of the latter. As far as I can see, the cause of not allowing others to dictate what masculinity is, is bound up with rejecting masculinity as something to be achieved. But maybe I’m way off base in that…

    @ Keoni: Yeah, I agree; it’s kinda cheesy. Yet, it works.

    Like I said, we don’t have exclusive ownership of the ‘Red Pill’ meme, so we can’t claim it as just ours…

     
  11. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 2:35 am

    @ Jay: Exactly! 🙂

     
  12. empathologicalism

    October 27, 2012 at 8:39 am

    People who create fixations of definitions and nomenclatures are not real. They are here, or where ever these debates break out, as a sort of intellectual masturbation exercise. The name is fine.

     
  13. 3rd Millenium Men

    October 27, 2012 at 8:53 am

    I agree. I was introduced to the Manosphere by another guy, who described it as that. It struck a chord and I fully embraced it. It’s about learning the most critical aspects of being a MAN. Nothing I’ve read fits better.

     
  14. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 9:35 am

    @ empath: Ha! Exactly. 🙂

     
  15. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 9:37 am

    @ 3MM: Agree completely!

     
  16. Laguna Beach Fogey

    October 27, 2012 at 10:03 am

    It doesn’t bother me. I occasionally make reference to the ‘Alt-Right-Nat-Manosphere’ to emphasise the shared interests of these groups. Clumsy, I know, and I don’t expect it to catch on, but it drives home the point.

    “While I’m on the subject, are men who take an interest in dressing well, cooking, the arts, etc., any less manly than those who prefer professional sports? Because the fear of the term ‘manosphere’ strikes me as the sort of hyper-masculine bullshit that gets people who like the arts labelled ‘theater-fags’, even if they’re straight. Why can’t straight guys like theatre, the arts, even dancing, the way true ‘renaissance men’ did in times past?”

    Well said. Straight guys *do* like books, classic clothing, opera, art, i.e. culture. [I started my InterWebz column writing about clothing and style, but quickly realised there is much more to it than that.] It is the fat meatheads who spend their free time sitting around together on a sofa watching other men on the telewitz run around chasing a ball that strike me as somehow deficient and un-manly. I’m against the professional sports industry. As I tell my girlfriends: I don’t want to watch, I’d rather *do*.

     
  17. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 10:21 am

    I’m inclined to agree, LBF; I know guys who both play sports themselves and are fairly athletic, and enjoy watching sports too, but I know far, far more who are not very athletic to say the least, but are still big ‘sportsfanz’, which I find interesting, and a bit strange to me. I even stopped watching the Olympics, some years back, because I thought, “What does the achievement of that man / woman / group of men / women have to do with me? Just because they’re Canadian, how am I included? Why should I identify thus?” My attitude towards professional sports is the same. If I’m in a bar and I hear some guys saying to others, boasting of their favourite team beating the other guys’ favourite team, “We kicked your asses!”, I think, “How odd; it had nothing to do with these sportsfanz; it was that one team defeating the other team; why identify vicariously with them, as if you had something to do with it?” And the losers’ fans all hanging their head in shame, or “We’ll come back and beat you guys next time!”, again, as if they had something to do with it. All the while, wearing team jerseys of the respective teams, as if they were on it.

    I just don’t get it. Though since I’m in the minority, I consider myself the oddball, not liking professional sports very much (I still enjoy seeing a game in person, but not so much on TV).

     
  18. Dr. Eric Stratton

    October 27, 2012 at 10:26 am

    I never expected the discussion to go this far.

    It’s a useful term, but I’d still rather go the James Brown route and just call it the world.

     
  19. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 10:27 am

    I don’t follow, Ulysses; what song of James Brown are you referring to?

     
    • Dr. Eric Stratton

      October 27, 2012 at 10:29 am

      It’s a man’s, man’s, man’s world, though the lyrics don’t match with those who choose not to take a woman.

       
  20. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Ah.

     
  21. Keoni Galt

    October 27, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    It is the fat meatheads who spend their free time sitting around together on a sofa watching other men on the telewitz run around chasing a ball that strike me as somehow deficient and un-manly. I’m against the professional sports industry. As I tell my girlfriends: I don’t want to watch, I’d rather *do*.

    Now there are the couch potato men who define their entire lifes pursuit in fanatically spectating all the sports they can find broadcast on the Tell-a-vision. This existence is certainly….less then masculine. I know a few guys for whom the only thing they live for is to come home from work, pop open a beer and turn on the TV…and that is all they do with their life. Lame.

    However, as a former athelete, a long time (and still practicing) martial artist, as well as a generally physically active guy, I have an appreciation for the highest echelon of athletic achievement of young men, especially in the sports that are the most grueling and require the highest levels of skill, strategy and talent to attain success.

    I find NFL football and MMA fighting to be a fascinating spectacle and a great form of entertainment.

    As a guy approaching 40, there is not now nor will their ever be a “do” when it comes to competing with the young, physically prime and immensely talented athletes that play today’s sports. But having once been a young man that played those sports, I have a good perspective on the training, practice and exhaustion required to follow such a lifestyle.

    If the owners of our society intend to give us the highest levels of bread and circuses to keep us distracted from our reality, well, I consider indulging occasionally in the spectacle as just another aspect of enjoying the decline!

     
  22. Bronan the Barbarian!

    October 27, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Lol @ all the caremad. You boys are thilly.

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e12-the-f-word

     
  23. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Who’s more silly, though? Those who bitch about a useful term because they decide it sounds faggy, or those who sensibly defend the pre-existing term on rational grounds?

    Maybe a bit humourless, but not silly, surely, be we. 🙂

     
  24. The Continental Op

    October 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    To be clear, Roissy is a sodomite himself, and advocates it with gusto. You can look it up, but I’ll save you the trouble:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

    “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex”

     
  25. Will S.

    October 27, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    @ TCO: But he’s not a homo; and not all traditionalist Christians are in agreement that such acts, between husband and wife, are forbidden, despite the dictionary definition including heterosexual acts of that kind as ‘sodomy’; Scripture does not specifically outlaw such acts in a heterosexual context, so while some churches, notably the Roman Catholic (and presumably Eastern Orthodox) specifically forbid such things, Protestant churches tend not to make rules regarding such (though some may, and some Protestants will forbid such acts). I refuse to get into a big debate over this, though; we will have to agree to disagree.

    [*Update: Here‘s the general Protestant take on the matter.]

     
  26. Daniel de León

    October 28, 2012 at 5:32 am

    Up early so I figured I’d post this. What about renaming the manosphere the Lyceum? You can all envision yourselves as some sort of Alexander under the wing of Aristotle. Oh, and Will, there will be one big ass theater just for you brother ;-).

    Anything but cocktagon. If that catches on I will drag each and every one of your sorry asses through hell and leave you there with a gasoline can.

     
  27. Will S.

    October 28, 2012 at 8:35 am

    @ Daniel: 🙂

    (Actually, I never was considered a theater-fag; I took music, not drama; music was my thing. But I also did gym for all but my last year, and enjoyed sports there, though I never joined a single school sports team. Other than that, I was still kind of considered a nerd at the start of high school, till I ditched my nerd friends in order to ascend the social scale. It wasn’t instantaneous, though, and took till my last couple years to finally ascend to the second inner circle, though not the innermost. But I digress.)

    Lyceum? I like it. But manosphere has already caught on as a name, of course, and it might be hard to get people to accept so classical a new term.

     
  28. Daniel de León

    October 28, 2012 at 9:13 am

    I actually have no qualms with the term manosphere as I believe it captures the purpose of this side of the internet well enough. That [purpose] being the discussion of issues regarding the male experience.

    I also had The Collegium as a suggestion.

     
  29. Will S.

    October 28, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    That also would work.

    I’ve also thought of another possible one: the Brotherhood. Except that sounds more political than the manosphere truly is…

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s