The ‘Manosphere’ refers to the recent springing up of a number of apparently ‘anti-feminist’ websites on the internet, most notably ReturnofKings.com, created by Daryush Valizadeh, who blogs under the name ‘Roosh’.
Articles on the site cover a fairly broad range of topics, from politics to history to society. There are different bloggers with different opinions, but overall the site tends to be very socially conservative and argue in favor of traditional gender roles, i.e. – that it is generally best if men stick to acting 'masculine' and women stick to acting 'feminine'.
Predictably, many others on the internet, feminists in particular, have condemned the mere existence of these websites. The Southern Poverty Law Center in the US has labelled Return of Kings a hate site, while it has been described on Jezebel, with their usual charm, as a 'disgusting, misogynistic website, a non-stop stream of vitriolic, horrifying garbage' and a 'compendium of fetid little trolls who sit in a troll-pile, rubbing bits of fossilized troll-poop together while gleefully squalling about how much they hate ugly chicks...'
I’ll admit many aspects of the site are distasteful. The site’s policy of banning comments from ‘women and homosexuals’ speaks for itself. It’s a very blokey, conservative website. Having said that however, there are a few things I’d like to conclude. I’ve been scrolling through Return of King articles every now and then for a few months now, and many of them I've found refreshingly candid. For instance -
http://www.returnofkings.com/9932/the-15-magical-years-of-womanhood
http://www.returnofkings.com/18782/fat-shaming-week
http://www.returnofkings.com/25448/5-reasons-why-the-gender-pay-gap-is-bogus
http://www.returnofkings.com/29099/how-trigger-warnings-silence-dissent-and-protect-fragile-egos
http://www.returnofkings.com/9932/the-15-magical-years-of-womanhood
http://www.returnofkings.com/18782/fat-shaming-week
http://www.returnofkings.com/25448/5-reasons-why-the-gender-pay-gap-is-bogus
http://www.returnofkings.com/29099/how-trigger-warnings-silence-dissent-and-protect-fragile-egos
These are the sorts of articles you’d never see on the Huffington Post, or CNN, or really anywhere else. They would certainly never see the light of day on Jezebel, where they'd be labeled ‘sexist’ and ‘misogynist’ quicker than you could blink. Yet, as someone who tries to be an impartial judge of everything I read on the internet, no matter how shocking it may seem at first, I can't help but admit I've found myself slowly nodding along as I read them. Even though I generally consider myself to be a left-wing progressive, much of their criticism of the left rings very true. I would urge people to have a thorough read of the site before criticizing it.
Having said that, there’s a lot of ridiculous crap on the website as well, especially from those railing against homosexuals and abortion. A lot of the comments are completely over the top as well. An article may make a basically well-reasoned argument that women might be underrepresented in parliaments because they tend to have less interest in politics for instance, only for it to be followed by a flood of comments by obviously bitter men who take things completely over the top. From one single article we have examples like:
'Tumblr social justice warriors are by far the biggest pieces of shit humanity has ever seen.'
'professional victims are nothing but closeted fascists. by trying to ban the publication of articles, trying to ban words and plain-old being bitchy with anyone with a dissenting opinion, you fucked-up women are bringing a new dark age unto humanity. 1984, anyone?'
'the tumblr community is the most closed-minded fanatical hypocritical bunch of sorry excuses for human beings since jezebel. just goes to show that when you get a bunch of hens together, NOTHING GOOD CAN COME OUT OF IT'
Regardless of the pros and cons of the website, it is a separate question entirely to ask – so why does the manosphere exist? Where did all this seemingly bitter, hateful men come from? For a typical Jezebel user, it seems an impossible question to answer. Likewise, Manosphere users seem to have total contempt for feminists as well.
'Tumblr social justice warriors are by far the biggest pieces of shit humanity has ever seen.'
'professional victims are nothing but closeted fascists. by trying to ban the publication of articles, trying to ban words and plain-old being bitchy with anyone with a dissenting opinion, you fucked-up women are bringing a new dark age unto humanity. 1984, anyone?'
'the tumblr community is the most closed-minded fanatical hypocritical bunch of sorry excuses for human beings since jezebel. just goes to show that when you get a bunch of hens together, NOTHING GOOD CAN COME OUT OF IT'
Regardless of the pros and cons of the website, it is a separate question entirely to ask – so why does the manosphere exist? Where did all this seemingly bitter, hateful men come from? For a typical Jezebel user, it seems an impossible question to answer. Likewise, Manosphere users seem to have total contempt for feminists as well.
So please, parties on both sides of this social and political divide, allow me to reveal the secrets of the universe to you - as to why you find each other so utterly baffling.
When it comes to explaining how people act in society - an important question that ties into all sorts of fields from politics to economics, there has been a major divide between left and right in recent history. Basically, it comes down to the question of nurture vs nature. Are people's actions inherently programmed, or can they be molded by society?
It should be obvious which side believes in which. The left believes that concepts like race, class and, of particular relevance here - gender, are manmade. They have been created by people, and thus can be unmade in turn.
The right meanwhile, believes that such distinctions in society are generally a lot more inherent. Thus, they cannot be changed, and any attempts to do so will only end in disaster.
Herein lies the impasse. Feminists and other progressives view initiatives to enforce equality between men and women as beneficial, if not a moral imperative. If men's disproportionate wealth and influence in society is an unnatural phenomenon, then by definition women must be oppressed, and freeing them from that oppression can only be a good thing.
Manosphere users however, see it as self-evident that, for various reasons I'll elaborate on in a moment, men's greater influence in society is not a mistake, but to some extent completely natural. Women perform different roles in society because they are better suited to them. Such roles are not necessarily worse mind you, just different. Many Return of Kings articles point to things like far higher accident and death rates among male employees as reasons for why they are paid more, not because of any fundamental bias.
Now as for the reasons why, we enter very politically incorrect territory here, but some of the major reasons can be summed up quite succinctly. They basically come down to a list of inherent differences suggested to exist between men and women. While individual Return of Kings bloggers may differ as to the specifics of this list, a brief summary could go something like this:
- Men are generally physically larger than women, thus better suited to many more physically demanding jobs
- Men are generally more aggressive then women, thus tend to handle confrontations and deal with the stress of leadership positions better
- Men generally have higher sex drives then women, thus tend to go to greater lengths to impress potential partners
Notice that in these differences, intelligence is not necessarily a factor. Even Manosphere users tend to accept (though I'm sure this would still draw some contention) that women are just as intelligent as men, rather, they tend to have fewer incentives to use this intelligence and turn it into something productive. Sex drives have greater importance here then you may think. Basically, they say, a typical man will go to the ends of the Earth to impress a decent woman. Most women however, are already so saturated with attention from men that there is little need to do this. Given that surveys tend to agree that men desire sex about 2-3 times as often as women, I can't deny they've got a point.
Taking the above differences to their logical conclusion, it is no wonder that their still exists a 'gender pay gap'. Men tend to dominate senior positions, particularly when it comes to parliaments and corporate boards, because relatively few women have proven themselves able to function under such stressful environments. Even lower down, men tend to be paid more because they work longer hours (54% of employee working hours are undergone by men), will perform more dangerous jobs (with 92% of workplace deaths suffered by men) and are physically more capable (only small numbers of women are generally able to pass the fitness tests to become police, firefighters or soldiers for instance).
You will have to do your own research on these differences, but they are the real, fundamental bone of contention here. They are an alternative explanation to mere 'sexism' as to why there are so many areas of society, from parliaments to prisons, where men and women are not split 50-50.
If the feminists are correct, and the above differences are of little real significance, then the Manosphere will be proven wrong in the long run. If these differences are a lot more inherent however, then we will find that the 'glass ceiling' feminists often complain about is not made of glass as all, but instead a block of solid iron that nature herself has put in place. Furthermore, by trying to impose quotas and affirmative action programs that corral greater numbers of women into these positions, you'll be causing a great deal of unhappiness for both sexes, not to mention potential damage to the economy and society to a whole. Plenty of Return of Kings articles follow this mantra.
Regardless of who is right, I will side with the Manosphere on one issue. Dissent in a community should really never be silenced, no matter how cruel or bizarre it might sound at the time. The hysterical overreactions of feminists to the mere existence of bloggers like Roosh has proven that a deep insecurity truly exists in their worldview. He has definitely touched an open nerve. I find it odd also that Roosh has been called the 'most hated man on the internet'. I wonder, what exactly has he done? He hasn't murdered anyone has he? As far as I'm aware he may not even have a criminal record, yet he is despised as if he eats newborn babies for breakfast every day.
No, he is hated because he dares to tell a powerful group of smug, supremely confident people that they might be wrong, that in this case equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes may not completely coincide, and I would say to the Jezebel users of the world, how can you be sure that you're not wrong? Here in the west the wage gap narrowed significantly until about the 1990s, but little progress has been made since then. Might we have taken things too far in demanding equality between two groups of people that may actually be quite fundamentally different? The Manosphere raises a number of compelling arguments you will have to refute, and not just by labeling them 'troll-arguments' and screeching about misogyny, but with calm, well-reasoned logic. I find myself wondering as to the eventual outcome of this debate. At the moment, the Manosphere's rise seems meteoric, but they are still a small, fringe movement that could peak and fade off into obscurity any time soon. Only time will tell.
At the very least, I can't say they're wrong about everything. For that alone, they are not a complete waste of space, as much of the internet seems to think. These guys deserve to be heard. I'd urge anyone interested in gender politics to give Return of Kings a try. It might just shake your worldview a little, which in my experience, is never a bad thing.
It should be obvious which side believes in which. The left believes that concepts like race, class and, of particular relevance here - gender, are manmade. They have been created by people, and thus can be unmade in turn.
The right meanwhile, believes that such distinctions in society are generally a lot more inherent. Thus, they cannot be changed, and any attempts to do so will only end in disaster.
Herein lies the impasse. Feminists and other progressives view initiatives to enforce equality between men and women as beneficial, if not a moral imperative. If men's disproportionate wealth and influence in society is an unnatural phenomenon, then by definition women must be oppressed, and freeing them from that oppression can only be a good thing.
Manosphere users however, see it as self-evident that, for various reasons I'll elaborate on in a moment, men's greater influence in society is not a mistake, but to some extent completely natural. Women perform different roles in society because they are better suited to them. Such roles are not necessarily worse mind you, just different. Many Return of Kings articles point to things like far higher accident and death rates among male employees as reasons for why they are paid more, not because of any fundamental bias.
Now as for the reasons why, we enter very politically incorrect territory here, but some of the major reasons can be summed up quite succinctly. They basically come down to a list of inherent differences suggested to exist between men and women. While individual Return of Kings bloggers may differ as to the specifics of this list, a brief summary could go something like this:
- Men are generally physically larger than women, thus better suited to many more physically demanding jobs
- Men are generally more aggressive then women, thus tend to handle confrontations and deal with the stress of leadership positions better
- Men generally have higher sex drives then women, thus tend to go to greater lengths to impress potential partners
Notice that in these differences, intelligence is not necessarily a factor. Even Manosphere users tend to accept (though I'm sure this would still draw some contention) that women are just as intelligent as men, rather, they tend to have fewer incentives to use this intelligence and turn it into something productive. Sex drives have greater importance here then you may think. Basically, they say, a typical man will go to the ends of the Earth to impress a decent woman. Most women however, are already so saturated with attention from men that there is little need to do this. Given that surveys tend to agree that men desire sex about 2-3 times as often as women, I can't deny they've got a point.
Taking the above differences to their logical conclusion, it is no wonder that their still exists a 'gender pay gap'. Men tend to dominate senior positions, particularly when it comes to parliaments and corporate boards, because relatively few women have proven themselves able to function under such stressful environments. Even lower down, men tend to be paid more because they work longer hours (54% of employee working hours are undergone by men), will perform more dangerous jobs (with 92% of workplace deaths suffered by men) and are physically more capable (only small numbers of women are generally able to pass the fitness tests to become police, firefighters or soldiers for instance).
You will have to do your own research on these differences, but they are the real, fundamental bone of contention here. They are an alternative explanation to mere 'sexism' as to why there are so many areas of society, from parliaments to prisons, where men and women are not split 50-50.
If the feminists are correct, and the above differences are of little real significance, then the Manosphere will be proven wrong in the long run. If these differences are a lot more inherent however, then we will find that the 'glass ceiling' feminists often complain about is not made of glass as all, but instead a block of solid iron that nature herself has put in place. Furthermore, by trying to impose quotas and affirmative action programs that corral greater numbers of women into these positions, you'll be causing a great deal of unhappiness for both sexes, not to mention potential damage to the economy and society to a whole. Plenty of Return of Kings articles follow this mantra.
Regardless of who is right, I will side with the Manosphere on one issue. Dissent in a community should really never be silenced, no matter how cruel or bizarre it might sound at the time. The hysterical overreactions of feminists to the mere existence of bloggers like Roosh has proven that a deep insecurity truly exists in their worldview. He has definitely touched an open nerve. I find it odd also that Roosh has been called the 'most hated man on the internet'. I wonder, what exactly has he done? He hasn't murdered anyone has he? As far as I'm aware he may not even have a criminal record, yet he is despised as if he eats newborn babies for breakfast every day.
No, he is hated because he dares to tell a powerful group of smug, supremely confident people that they might be wrong, that in this case equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes may not completely coincide, and I would say to the Jezebel users of the world, how can you be sure that you're not wrong? Here in the west the wage gap narrowed significantly until about the 1990s, but little progress has been made since then. Might we have taken things too far in demanding equality between two groups of people that may actually be quite fundamentally different? The Manosphere raises a number of compelling arguments you will have to refute, and not just by labeling them 'troll-arguments' and screeching about misogyny, but with calm, well-reasoned logic. I find myself wondering as to the eventual outcome of this debate. At the moment, the Manosphere's rise seems meteoric, but they are still a small, fringe movement that could peak and fade off into obscurity any time soon. Only time will tell.
At the very least, I can't say they're wrong about everything. For that alone, they are not a complete waste of space, as much of the internet seems to think. These guys deserve to be heard. I'd urge anyone interested in gender politics to give Return of Kings a try. It might just shake your worldview a little, which in my experience, is never a bad thing.
