Are Manosphere Women like Male Modern Feminists?

How similar are they? It’s hard for me to tell, as I’ve only been inside one of the movements/blogospheres. But for what it’s worth, here’s my experience.

Manosphere hates male feminists even more than they hate the female ones. Online feminists hate Red Pill Women, as far as I can tell, in a distinctly different way from Red Pill Men. In both cases, you’re considered a traitor to your sex by your opposition – someone who excuses and encourages bad behavior of the opposite sex. You’re also considered weak, unempowered and self-harming by the opposition.

Feminists follow a mainstream worldview. Women in the manosphere follow an unpopular antifeminist worldview. Actually, the women of the manosphere do not follow a completely unpopular worldview. Feminist understanding of the sexes is taught in the same universities that teach real biology and psychology. The latter clearly state there are biological sex differences. And sometimes, when you talk to people, you will notice they have internalized both views without feeling cognitive dissonance. You might hear someone say “there are no gender differences except genitals, there should be equality between the sexes already” and then quote a news article about some study that found that women are more emotionally intelligent, while men are more stoic. Frankly, the only difference between the manosphere views and real scientists are presentation, nicer tone, and more rigorous standards for finding facts. But the overall direction is the same.

Female feminists are sometimes annoyed by male feminists. Manosphere men are sometimes annoyed by manosphere women. But at the same time, being a woman in the manosphere can get you a lot of positive male attention. A manosphere woman who expresses empathy for men can really warm hearts, and sometimes even attract a manosphere man for herself. I wonder if the same thing happens for male feminists?

For both manosphere women and male feminists, being a big supplicator is bad. Feeling guilty over one’s sex is a good way to irritate people who are provoked by signs of weakness – and those are always around. However, I have so far not seen a manosphere woman who is so desperate to please the manosphere men, and so desperate to meet some list of requirements for being a good person, that she is emotionally crushed by “female guilt” and the inability to meet that list of requirements. I have, however, seen male feminists who have reached that point ( look at that: http://lyall.tumblr.com/post/42767719565 I see it’s called Feminist Guilt. Also, there is this: http://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/the-social-role-of-scapegoat-and-the-internal-feeling-of-depression-feed-on-each-other/ ).

Male feminists are sometimes accused of acting like a feminist to get into women’s pants. Manosphere women are sometimes accused of entering male spaces so they could be big fish in a small pool. How true is it? I don’t know. But there is nothing wrong with trying to get in someone’s pants, get a partner, or gain popularity in the blogging world. If you can do that AND do something good for the opposite sex… why not?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Feminism, MRA and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Are Manosphere Women like Male Modern Feminists?

  1. YouSoWould says:

    “A manosphere woman who expresses empathy for men can really warm hearts, and sometimes even attract a manosphere man for herself. I wonder if the same thing happens for male feminists?”

    I’m not entirely certain this wasn’t an ironic question, so at the risk of sounding foolish, I’ll reply…

    For the large part, no. The supplicating behaviour displayed by male feminists usually invokes visceral disgust in women. Who can respect and depend upon a man to be strong that grovels and tries to please your every whim? Despite feminists claiming they are attracted to certain behaviours, they’re still driven by the same base evolutionary attraction impulses as every other female.

    With the notable exception of someone like a Hugo Schywzer, who occupied a position of authority within the feminist world as a gender studies instructor, and was able to leverage this to get into a lot of pants, if rumours are to be believed.

    Although red pill women may invoke the ire of some manosphere writers who claim they are trying to inveigle their way into the group simply to attract validation from men, they are still in fact acting in accordance with what men are biologically attracted to, and if indeed their desire is to get into some guy’s pants, they’ve got a far higher chance of doing so than a male feminist, who just inspires contempt in both genders.

  2. infowarrior1 says:

    Its the fear that the presence of women will compromise male space and make it all about themselves once established the female of the species as far as male psychology and female goes impossible to root out. Hence certain places like ROK banned women all together. Otherwise men will have to go the annoying route of always retreating and reforming.

    Keeping out the women also has the effect of thirsty supplicating simps that follow the women in the male space.

  3. brolinson_ says:

    This i a cray cray thought, but what if there was a community of women in there late teens/20s that hated men but would through themself at any man that showed them any intressed aka teh fem equivalent of the manosphere.That would be great (^_^). Anyway good post as always.

  4. Eric says:

    Emma:
    I think that some male feminists pose as defenders of women and children as a cover for their predatory activities:

    http://theantifeminist.com/monsterboobz-david-futrelle-disturbing-defence-film-sexual-abuse-torture-children/

  5. Liz says:

    I find it very hard to relate to male feminists. I’m not sure what we have in common. I do think female feminists are less likely to question the motivations of male “feminists”. Probably because they aren’t very discerning (“it’s our inherent awesomeness as strong womenz that bringzem here! Yeah!”).

    • Emma the Emo says:

      It’s usually hard to relate to someone you strongly disagree with. But I try to understand what’s in them. I think it should be possible to gain a good understanding of the opponent without liking them.
      And I do think female feminists can be suspicious to the male ones (seen it), but he can still get popular (like Manboobz).

  6. Bob Smith says:

    Sometimes – after all is said and done – lint still collects in your belly button. You sexist pig.

  7. caprizchka says:

    I don’t believe that there is such a thing as an ideology that either confers character on its adherents or that collects persons of character more consistently than other ideologies. However, there is a “honeymoon phase” where that illusion may be prevalent.

    Meanwhile, I am of the belief that many “white knights” are acting out of a desire to reconcile their own Oedipus complex and I suppose the female MHRAs may be in the complimentary role of reconciling their own Electra complex. The thing is, I belief that female feminists and male MHRA’s may actually be in a similar situation but yet not so self-aware as to understand it and therefore vulnerable to transference with their own leadership.

    Meanwhile, there’s something terribly ironic about the MGTOW movement including the name. I mean, why isn’t it just singular–a MGHOW? Is a herd of men going to be any less dysfunctional than a herd of women? Well, probably, but not so much, given that from my observation, men are actually able to get along better with each other than women are in terms of accepting each other’s differences. Of course there are exceptions.

    Meanwhile, I also have to regard anyone with suspicion attempting to lead or otherwise frame the MHRA message to a narrow scope because, like the feminists, I want to know *who* is sponsoring the message and *who* gains from the particular framing. It is unfortunate just how imperfect we are as human beings in that invariably, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      I like your thinking about ideology and character.

      Not sure I understand the part about the complexes. Do you mean male feminists have mommy issues and female MHRAs daddy issues? And what do you mean by this one: “The thing is, I belief that female feminists and male MHRA’s may actually be in a similar situation but yet not so self-aware as to understand it and therefore vulnerable to transference with their own leadership. ” I’m just curious and hope you can elaborate 🙂 (And I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to elaborate on the last paragraph too. )

      And I suppose “MGHOW” sounds individualistic, and gives the movement an individualistic flair. But just because a man goes HIS own way, doesn’t mean he has to forfeit likeminded friends. Choosing your own path doesn’t imply being alone 🙂

      • caprizchka says:

        The Oedipus complex or Electra complex simplified is “Mommy’s boy”.or “Daddy’s girl,” respectively. That goes along with a desire to protect one’s opposite sex parent from the other as well as competition between the child and the same sex parent. This is just Freud but I think he’s on to something even if the actual manifestation isn’t necessarily going to be dramatic or conscious. However as more Western parents are frankly inadequate as role models as a result of career choices or modern narcissism, more and more children are going to grow up less and less resolved in terms of these primal dysfunctions.

        As for female feminists and male MHRA’s the same complexes may apply but the ideology makes the individual completely unwitting of the dynamic. Specifically, a female feminist may decide that her father is to blame for the inadequacy of her mother while meanwhile competing with her mother in terms of being “more intelligent”, “more empowered,” and maybe even “more feminine” even if that turns out to be as a lesbian or transsexual. A male MHRA may decide that his mother is to blame for the inadequacy of his father while meanwhile competing with his father…and so on.

        I’m not saying that these situations apply to *all* of these types but I suspect that they apply to *many.*

        As for “transference,” a charismatic MHRA or feminist leader offers a *resolution* to the conflict while meanwhile standing in as a role model to replace the inadequate role model of the parent.

        That gives that individual an inordinate amount of power over the subconscious of the follower. Hence, my caution and close observation as to the direction of the MHRA. So far, I have nothing to complain about from the “mainstream,” albeit there are a few megalomaniacs in the fringes attempting to build their own little kingdoms.

        An awful lot of movements of the Twentieth Century were corrupted by big money. All it takes to co-opt a movement is to give a whole lot of money to a loud megalomaniac without telling him or her the source of the largess. That sponsored megalomaniac will corrupt the movement even surer than starving it of funds.

        So long as the MGTOW movement continues to accept individual choices and individual agency rather than succumbing to demagogues I’m all for like-minds, friendships, and so on.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Interesting stuff. Haven’t read much about psychology of child development yet, so can’t comment. But thanks for explaining anyway. My own parents were pretty good and about equally competent I would say 🙂

      • caprizchka says:

        I envy you! Mine were about equally incompetent and really had no business reproducing. Fortunately, there’s more than one way to approach wisdom or reform of long-held beliefs. Personally, I credit the adult men of my life for giving me alternatives. Up until then, I was carefully extracted from the reach of any adult who might have given me those options–demonstrating that my parents were indeed capable of adult agency when it suited their interests.

        However, your parents not being American (right?) had a built in advantage of not being subject to the intense behavior conditioning that started here at least since the early 20th Century but which can ultimately be traced back to Puritanism and other Protestant “reforms” of social control.

        The rest of the world is at least a generation behind but would seem to be catching up.

  8. I don’t think there are enough of us yet to really count. And redpill applies beyond relationships, to other subjects like economics and sciences. Feminism tries to constrain knowledge by reducing it back to sex and themselves, and the innate differences of m/f cause the resentment. Redpill acknowledges those differences, which somewhat alleviates them? Yin/Yang.

  9. the whole red pill/blue pill dichotomy is simple minded…

    http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/pill-popperz-and-other-assorted-looney-tunes/

    as far as FeMRA’s-typhone blue is exceedingly condescending. Of course an idealogue like Elam wants her on his team–“oh, a girls is on my side, I’m not really a misogynist like Fatrelle claims. Let me wave my arms around and shit on low status men because I’m an alpha.”

    Hugo Schwyzer was a sociopath who used the ideology of a hate movement to get pussy. Wonder when a Jodi Arias type chic will show up in teh man-0-sphere…

  10. Pingback: David Futrelle and his Disturbing Defence of a Film that Consists Almost Entirely of Graphic Scenes Depicting the Sexual Abuse and Torture of Naked Children - Bacon in Bangkok

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s