II: Ideological Inconsistency
Now, I suppose a few manospambots, if they ever find this entry, might complain that so far I’ve done a lot of mocking of manospherians themselves, but haven’t said anything against what they actually believe. Even if manospambots are a bunch of inveterate losers, isn’t it possible that their beliefs are actually correct? I don’t think that’s very likely, but fine, let’s be generous for a moment. Even if we bother looking at manosphere beliefs seriously, we find that a lot of such beliefs are inconsistent with each other, i.e by necessity much of what the manosphere believes must be false because two opposite propositions can’t be true at the same time. In this section, I’ll explain all of these contradictions.
A: Women are simultaneously weak yet strong
This one’s pretty simple. Even a few minutes of casual googling will reveal the typical manospambot or MGTOW believes women are inferior, unintelligent, amoral, and generally worse at absolutely everything than men—I provided a few examples in the previous section. But they ALSO believe that women either run society or that society is run for women’s benefit—look up “gynocentrism” for proof; they also have a bunch of evo-bio “explanations” for this, like “sperm cheap, eggs expensive.” The reasoning is that a tribe could repopulate itself if most of its men died, with one man fathering kids with all the women, while the converse wasn’t true, so human beings “evolved” to prefer and give deference to women as much as possible.
The problem is, if this were actually true, none of what the manosphere believes about female inferiority (or the inferiority of “manginas” or “simps”) could possibly be true. Let’s take the assumption that women somehow control society themselves. If this were true, then women would have to be superior in some respect to those they control (men). If they weren’t physically strong, they would have to be a lot smarter than men to manipulate us and have us do their bidding constantly. Most manospambots would deny that and say women really are stupid, and it’s just that men evolved to be “manginas” or whatever who can’t help but act in a “gynocentric” manner, giving women benefits the women haven’t earned. But in that case, the manospambot has admitted that despite ostensibly superior male strength and intellect, we’re doomed by evolution to be really stupid where it really counts (gender relations). Aside from that, there’s also this issue: “Manginas” seem to be running everything in just about every country in the world. If “manginas” and “simps” were that dumb, you’d have expected their governments to have fallen a while ago and true Manly Men to be running everything. Yet, as I described in the previous section, manospherians, MGTOWs, misogynists, and other non-mangina guys seem to be a motley crew of psychos, morons, and losers who couldn’t run a popsicle stand. Ain’t that weird?
As an aside, this is also the same problem white nationalists and fascists in general have. As Umberto Eco pointed out (the title for this section is a quote from him), they proclaim Jews to be stupid and lower-IQ than whites, yet also claim Jews somehow run the entire world and have been running it for centuries at least. Obviously, the Jews have to have something going for them if they control everything. But in any case, as I also mentioned at the end of the last section, it’s not much of a surprise there’s so much crossover between misogynists and white supremacists since they have to believe the same silly thing, i.e their hated enemies (women or jews) are simultaneously inferior yet somehow manage to control everything and foil them at every turn.
There’s one laughable manosphere lady (it’s always had a few self-loathing hangers-on), Esther Vilar, who said something like “Maybe men’s strength, intelligence, and beauty makes them the perfect slaves!” That’s funny, because (to take one example) it implies that formerly enslaved populations like African Americans were stronger, smarter, and more beautiful than their masters, but good luck getting Roissy or most other manospambots to admit that.
I’m not the first person to note many of these inconsistencies—here are some quotes from other bloggers who’ve made the same point. A funny post I found on another blog, Laserjungle, to start off with:
So I’ve browsed the MGTOW forums for a while and I think this is a relatively accurate description of some of their collective thinking.
Women are too stupid and emotionally-driven for higher level education and the workforce, but women who don’t work or go to college should be chastised as brainless leeches and parasites who will one day need a man to support them financially.
Modern women are nastly, morally-deprived sluts, who have long abandonded the superior notion that their virginity and sexuality should be reserved for the ONE man who will be her husband. Of course sexual abstinence does not apply to men whatsoever. And don’t give a bitch who won’t put out on the first date a second glance. Also, don’t believe a woman if she tells you she’s had less than twenty sexual partners, because women are inherently lying whores!
Modern women no longer want the traditional family and have instead chosen to ride “alpha” cock for all of their best years until they decide to settle. This shift will be the destruction of society as we know it! But if a woman even suggests that she wants to get married and procreate, RUN!!!!!!!!
Don’t even bother having conversations with women. They are nothing more than narcissistic vapid whores who have nothing interesting to say. Make an assumption and engage in a behavior that will let that notion go unchallenged so you can never be wrong!
Women are too selfish to be nuturing and good caregivers so children would be much better off being raised by men. But these children that we ~care so much about~ should be referred to as crotchspawn and fuck trophies.
There is no such thing as NAWALT (not all women are like that). All women are BIOLOGICALLY hardwired to be selfish, alpha-chasing, self-obsessed, destructive shebeasts. It’s SCIENCE!!! But let’s spend our lives constantly complaining about the behaviors we describe as inherent and natural and permanent.
“Few of the Men’s Rights arguments carry much weight. It’s ridiculous, for example, to claim that a country that has only ever had 38 female senators is matriarchial. As for the libertarian arguments, let’s apply Lenin’s favorite analytical technique: when someone says “Freedom,” ask “Freedom for whom? To do what?” What sort of “freedom” are the MGTOW calling for when they bemoan women who have the temerity to reject their advances? What sort of “freedom” calls for limited government, but also calls for men to “[u]se any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves?” The “freedom” the MGTOW demand is a freedom to dominate others and to ignore obligations to society. It is a freedom that has more to do with a twisted reading of Nietzsche than with Locke.”
“Secondly, the “sleeping your way to the top” argument doesn’t even make sense on its own terms. It is logically incoherent. After all, if women are able to leverage their sexuality to achieve an advantage over male colleagues, that presupposes they are not in charge. For a woman to sleep her way to the top, don’t all the people above her in the hierarchy have to be male? Because men’s rights activists always seem to imagine sexuality as synonymous with heterosexuality. Unless they are alleging that there has been a wholesale lesbian and bi takeover of our major corporate institutions, this whole argument seems to hinge on first admitting that men are overwhelmingly still holding the positions of power.”
“If this makes you scratch your head and wonder how a woman can control men through access to sex when she has such a limited window to work, then you’re not alone. The Red Pill philosophy isn’t big on internal consistency. After all, Red Pill-ers want to fuck the hottest women, yet these women are also the ones who are, in their words, “on the cock carousel”; so they want to fuck hot women and then turn around and shame the same women for fucking them. Women manipulate men, but men should apply dread game to get laid. They decry women for spinning multiple plates – RP jargon for “keeping men on the hook” – while also insisting that only betas settle down and alphas have harems. Women are manipulative and Machiavellian, forever plotting to fuck alphas and use betas but are also incapable of logic or rational thinking and instead rely on the “rationalization hamster” in order to settle cognitive dissonance.”
“Of course, what men tend to complain about in expenses in “maintaining their little woman” are usually the things they require her to have/use; they just don’t think about what she’s been doing to attract his attention all along, until he sees the expense later. Remember, breast implants are $3,000 to $5,000, repeated every 5 to 10 years. Think this isn’t really “required”? Check out pictures from beauty pageants (much harder to hide stuffed bras in swimsuits) before implants were approved; and compare to any such photos or even just ads, models, and celebrities now. What’s really sad is the surgery damages the nerves in the area, so women commonly lose a decent bit of sensation due to implants. How many men would be willing to make that tradeoff for their own anatomy?
Or, take makeup, shoes, clothes, manicures, hair salons… men seem aghast at the expenses incurred by them, but if a woman actually foregoes any of these, suddenly the cries of “butterface” or “sharp knees!” arise. My mother told me once, “Never let a man see you put on your makeup or your pantyhose”… in other words, don’t shatter the illusion that appearance comes naturally and easily. Remember that Katy Perry photo as she woke up? She had a fit and demanded it be removed, for this same reason. Men want the results without knowing what goes into it — discovering what all that costs is usually a shock. Remember, she was doing all that BEFORE she met you; you’re just finally getting the peek behind the curtain for what goes into the production.”
The quotes from Dr. Nerdlove and Quite Irregular provide an excellent segue into the next sub-section: The inconsistency of manosphere claims when it comes to sex.
B: Getting Laid is Good and Bad
“Marriage Sucks” is another loud rallying cry of the manosphere, with just about every element of it screaming about how you’ll certainly get “divorce-raped” and even if you don’t it’s still a drag, being “chained down” to a woman. However, they also believe that marriage was crucial to civilization. As the “Misandry Bubble,” which used to be close to a Bible among some segments of the manosphere, claims:
“To provide ‘beta’ men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as ‘marriage’. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as ‘civilization’.”
The funny thing is, even “old-school” marriage tends to be derided by manospherians, since they say women had easy jobs “in the home” while men had to do all the hard work of fighting in war or hunting or whatever. First, this line of thought isn’t really consistent with another bit of MGTOW agitprop, namely that men uninterested in women are super productive. They tend to compare themselves to bachelors like Erdos or Tesla all the time, but if marriage “reduces” male productivity, then feminism is to be praised for discouraging men from getting married. Aside from that, this line of thought makes civilization itself look profoundly unattractive. If even “marriage 1.0” was a drag for men, but we “need” to marry or else we’ll just hang around all day and civilization will collapse, maybe civilization ought to collapse. If marriage is slavery/exploitation for men, and civilization depends on marriage, then logically civilization depends on the slavery and exploitation of men, and we ought to thank feminism for obliterating civilization and thus liberating us.
On that note, another common manosphere talking point is that women were never really “independent,” and only the advance of technology (washing machines, etc.) made it practical for women to work outside the home. However, by the same token the manosphere and MGTOW can’t take “credit” for “rescuing” men from marriage, which a conservative, Critical G, pointed out:
“MGTOW can’t claim credit for non-marrying men who neither know anything about it nor have been induced by its writings. Feminists do exactly the same thing when they talk about the “progress” of women in industry and government. For example, the vast shift of women into the workforce and in fact the entire women’s movement, were made possible not by feminism but by the technological innovations that rendered housework so much lighter it gave housewives almost the entire day to themselves, which gave rise to women questioning the necessity of the traditional division of labour. Feminists will claim credit for that, but we are right to point out that this is a lie.”
Now, I think that’s too simplistic a read on history. However, this is yet another article of faith among manospambots, and as this guy (again, himself a righty) has pointed out, it makes MGTOW self-aggrandizement look silly. I’m not refraining from marriage because some loon on Youtube tells me I’m a mangina if I get married–larger technological and social currents deserve the credit rather than “MGTOWs” themselves.
There’s also the matter of “hypergamy.” Manospherians say this is how women are only sexually attracted to “high status” men, but “high status” to them means either a: rich men, or b: thugs and criminals. The more I think of it, though, the more it seems to me like grousing about hypergamy doesn’t fit with the social Darwinism the manosphere, and more generally the right wing, tends to espouse. Let’s take their definition of hypergamy as attraction to high status first. Manospherians complain that women have no loyalty and will hypergamously “trade up” the first chance they get. But from a Darwinistic standpoint, what’s wrong with that? Isn’t it better for civilization for women to go only for the best (wealthiest, i.e ostensibly smartest and most productive) man around so only the best genes get passed on? Sucks for the men who get pantsed, but hey, civilization requires sacrifice, right?
On the other hand, if manospambots decry female hypergamy as sexual attraction to thugs and murderers (for reasons we’ll get into in the next subsection), the conclusion we reach is that it’s not actually hypergamy, per se, manospambots oppose, but just “misdirected” hypergamy. If women were attracted only to high-IQ or math skills or whatever, the implication is that those manospambots wouldn’t mind at all. In that case, they shouldn’t be complaining about hypergamy in general and in fact should praise that evolutionary derived behavior; they should simply lament it’s not selecting for the right traits. But the problems get worse. If women are so sexually attracted to violent, evil thugs, wouldn’t that imply that most men throughout history, at least those who reproduced and spread their genes, would have been violent, evil thugs? After all, it’s not as if females of most species are sexually attracted to traits that don’t exist: Female deer are attracted to antlers because most male deer have them, female peacocks are attracted to flashy tails because male peacocks generally have them, and so on. If female humans are attracted to violence and a murderous demeanor, it stands to reason that most male humans have always been and generally are violent, murderous thugs. This is precisely what the most radical, man-hating, “kill all men” feminists believe. The fact that manospambots are replicating almost word for word the talking points of their most hated enemies does not fill me with confidence in their ideology.
C: Men are virtuous but also rape machines
Ironically enough, there’s one manospherian, Rollo Tomassi, who has out and out admitted this much. In one of his most famous essays, “War Brides,” he explains female psychology as essentially the product of women being constantly raped throughout all of the human race’s evolutionary history—“consent” simply didn’t exist for most of human history, in Rollo’s view, most of the time men from another tribe would just kill all of a woman’s male relatives and force her into slavery.
“Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.”
There are several conflicts with other parts of manosphere ideology in this. First, just as I mentioned above, if women today are the descendants of women in the past who could easily transfer their loyalties to the men who murdered their original husbands and relatives, by necessity, men today are the descendants of men in the past who were the most effective and violent murderers and conquerors. In other words, evolutionary biology proves that men really are as bad as feminists say we are. That’s, uh, not ideal for the manosphere.
I suppose Rollo might just go full edgelord and say “violence is good! Warfare is natural and made humans the dominant species on Earth!” OK, fine, but in that case, he has absolutely no hope whatsoever of getting all men to band together for *any* large-scale enterprise, which includes “fighting feminism.” If his account of evolutionary biology is correct, men evolved stuff like “honor” and “morality” only in the context of small, closely related bands, not much farther than their own families. Outside of that tiny circle, literally every other man on the planet was a man’s deadly enemy. That being the case, our evolved psychology would make it impossible for us to network and organize with millions of other men who are completely unrelated to us and often of completely different races—black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and so on—in order to “fight against the common enemy of feminism.” So the whole idea of fighting not even for “men’s rights,” but just finding common ground with other men and helping other men is a complete non-starter, because any kind of “brotherhood” or “camaraderie” amongst men outside of those directly related to you is an evolutionary non-starter. Rollo’s own ideology destroys any hope for the social change he wants to see.
From a female perspective, first, this ‘war brides’ thing makes a mockery of “gynocentrism,” which is again the belief that society is generally run for women’s benefit. In Rollo’s view, women were pretty much always nothing but chattel; the fact that they didn’t have to go out fighting or do heavy labor or whatever is no more significant than the fact that prehistoric and Bronze Age warlords didn’t send their sheep or cattle or other livestock to battle either. If women have never been anything but “war brides” then the necessary converse is that it is and always has been a man’s world, and if Rollo feels oppressed that just proves he’s not manly enough to deal with it.
This, by the way, also refutes “Briffault’s Law,” another famous piece of manosphere “wisdom” that states sexual interaction only takes place on the female’s terms in any species. If rape was so widespread, then women obviously didn’t do any choosing.
There’s also how Rollo, like other manospherians, bemoans women sleeping around for reducing their (supposed) propensity for monogamy. But if the “war brides” thesis was true, monogamy should be impossible for women, period. If human evolution worked as Rollo said it did, why would human females ever have evolved any propensity whatsoever to be loyal to a human male if it was overwhelmingly likely the male they were loyal to (even if he was her “first”) would get killed and replaced with his murderer?
D: The “fall” of education
One more thing, since the topic of sex leads to children. Manospambots often lament the “feminization” of education, complaining that teachers favor girls over boys all the way from kindergarten to college. Curiously, I haven’t met many who have any good ideas about changing this, and I think I know why. Another crucial piece of manosphere ideology is that “cuckoldry is the male equivalent of rape,” and that the ABSOLUTE WORST THING IN THE WORLD for men is raising another man’s kids. If this were so, then the domination of women in teaching is not only expected but perfectly just, because teaching is really nothing so much as spending a whole lot of your time and energy raising another person’s kids. So you can’t tell men “caring for other people’s kids makes you a giant cuck!” and then complain when we’re disinclined to spend at least 8 hours every day for most of the year wrangling not just a few but dozens and dozens of children completely unrelated to us.
E: In evolutionary terms, the only men who would complain about feminism are those too weak to deal with it.
The Darwinist worldview of Rollo and other manospherians is actually an Achille’s heel in one important respect. See, evolution doesn’t favor the strongest or even the most intelligent—it simply favors those most adapted to their environment. In that case, it makes no sense to complain about “feminism” making marriage or siring children more risky for most men, because that simply means the men most able to navigate those risks will end up succeeding and passing on their genes. Manospambots might say that “good genes” aren’t being passed on in that case, but too bad for them, Darwin doesn’t care about what they think is good, he only cares about what survives. It doesn’t matter how much contempt manospherians might have for the type of guy who can flourish in a “feminized” society or whatever, all that matters is that the guy passes on his genes. Regardless of whether or not what Rollo and MGTOWs might call “traditional masculinity” was a survival asset in the past, it doesn’t seem to be right now. A couple of other bloggers have made this point succinctly and forcefully:
“Darwin said the most fit species are able to adapt to their changing environment. In evolutionary terms, this process takes multiple generations over the course of centuries or millenia. Nature weeds those with less favorable traits. In the same vein, MGTOW are unfit because they’ve not adapted to the behavior of contemporary women. The methods to attract and keep 21st century women are different. Beta provider game, which flourished for centuries, doesn’t work anymore.”
“Upon reading the long-winded whines of various PUA/MRA/APA/whatever-type-menfolk in various comment section about how the world of dating and sex is just not fair, one is forced to wonder just how much they’d like the outcome if dating and sex actually were “fair” under their definition. That is to say, if everyone’s (not just all men, or all whatever sub-group they’re imagining) desires, desirability, dislikes, abilities, and limitations were weighed equally by an impartial judge, and everyone were assigned a partner and required to act according to those dictates, much the way they wish women (excuse me, hot women) could somehow be compelled persuaded to grant their favors in some sort of egalitarian fashion.*”
“If you’re a man who thinks that there’s a “War on Men,” you probably deserve to get beaten by the women.”
Think nobody even remotely sympathetic to the manosphere could come to these conclusions? Think again. I quote again Thumpy, who was more of a PUA:
“Look, it’s fine to wake up one day and realize you’re a weak-ass chump. Lots of guys do it. The key difference is that you should start effecting change at a rather rapid pace once that realization has dick-slapped you across the face. If you’re still a bitter beta a year later, or heaven forbid 2, 3, 5, 10 years later… you ain’t ever gonna change. You are a permanent beta chump living in a world that no longer has any respect or need for beta chumps.
If that’s the case, quit blogging. Quit whining. Accept yourself and move to Alaska to be alone and enjoy the beautiful scenery there. I’m waiting for the day when MGTOW truly and permanently GTOW rather than just threaten to.”
Maybe manospherians would claim that Thumpy wasn’t compassionate enough for the plight of his fellow men (if they wouldn’t first gleefully declare that he’s totally going to get falsely accused of rape by the Feminist Establishment or something). The problem is that ‘compassion’ is one of those evil feminine emotions manospambots tend to decry. Remember how ‘war brides’ implies every man is every other man’s enemy? So then why should a guy like Thumpy be at all concerned with the masses of men supposedly ground up by the Feminist Machine? He doesn’t know ‘em, he’s not related to ‘em, so screw ‘em. He himself is doing very well thanks to feminism, as he says:
“Rather, I feel like this is a perfect time for guys like me. I feel like it’s a time when single men are more free than any other time in human history. I can bang chicks without worrying about having to marry them and without wanting to start a family with them, and without having to buy them tons of shit.
I guess I just don’t understand the anger of the manosphere. I seduce women because I like sex and I like having it with as many chicks as possible without spending too much time or money. Period. I don’t do it to make a political statement, I don’t do it to defeat “feminism,” and I certainly don’t do it because I feel oppressed by anyone.”
Another guy on /r/marriedredpill felt the same, directly in response to Rollo too:
“Thanks partially to you, I welcome the thought of raising my sons to wield their “maleness” in a female primary, or equalism society. Isn’t that going to be part of the message of your masculine-fatherhood blog direction? How valuable unabashedly masculine men are in that society? The oft-mentioned 20%? Assuming they can make it though life without being trivially criminalized, the world is their oyster, like it is ours, the men of MRP, the men who read your blog.
Haters gonna hate, always have, but frame, value, being attractive, OI, and DNGAF “trump” all that, none of us here would have believed it if we hadn’t lived it along our journey, right?
What is the point of traditional masculinity in the blue pill dream world where, by virtue of only their penis and “doing the right thing”, every male gets a job, middle class lifestyle, 2.5 kids and a DTF wife who loves only him for her entire life. If that world exists, or ever did, then great, sign me and my progeny up, but isn’t the point that it doesn’t? That the burden of performance is real? Display high value or gtfo? The perfect-dad, old-set of books society or the sexual freedom, Pareto society looks the same from the top right?”
But fine, let’s ignore all this. Remember, I don’t buy into Rollo’s evo-bio stuff all that much either. Rape, abduction, and warfare happened throughout human history, sure, but if it was THAT prevalent large-scale civilization above the level of the tribe could never have arisen. By the time humans started living in cities like Sumer, with thousands of people rather than maybe a hundred at most clan members, men must have somehow figured out how to respect and work with other men, even unrelated ones. And as you’ll see from my post history and general outlook, I’m a big fan of benevolence, brotherhood, and helping out my fellow man. But then this leads me to another irony: If the manosphere is supposed to be about helping men, then to the extent that men take its advice, the less they actually need the manosphere, MGTOW, or any of that other stuff.