Quote: (05-31-2014 02:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

You meant 'principal' instead of 'principle.'

I also included a disclaimer saying it was "rough" and concluded with the words "blah blah."

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:43 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Try something a bit more crisp, along these lines (it's rough):

The Manosphere is a diverse collection of Internet blogs, men's magazines, discussion forums, and individual commentators whose principle similarity is a focus on men's issues today. Their subjects range from politics to self-improvement to academic matters. Their demographics and geography are similarly diverse. Several women are well-known Manosphere commentators; its members come all over the political spectrum; and some of the most prominent Manosphere communities are based outside of the United States--where it arguably originated.

While Manosphere's origins date back to the late 1990s, its profile has grown in recent years, with the expansion and popularization of...blah blah

You meant 'principal' instead of 'principle.'

The prime flaw with the article as it stands is that it uses the tendentious descriptions of its opponents to describe it, instead of just taking the manosphere's own description of itself. Instead of confining the criticism to a 'Criticism' section, the whole article is criticism.

I'd probably contribute if I were assured that my edits would be accepted, but that seems unlikely.

The funny thing about the 'manosphere' is that the guys who actively use that label are never the PUAs or the MRAs - it's mostly the self-styled 'red pill' people. You'll never hear Mystery or Neil Strauss talking about 'The Manosphere.' The thing that defines member of this forum in my mind is: a commitment to the truth, valuing traditional sex roles, traditional ideals of beauty, self-improvement, and pursuing what you want in life without regard to what society has to say. Establishment authorities are only respected insofar as their message is held to be true.

Basil,

Your edits are absolutely 100% acceptable and needed. At this stage, it is incredibly important that people like you help contribute to this article.

The strength of Wikipedia is its ability to be collectively edited and contributed by multiple people. There are clear guidelines that must be adhered to (no original research, cite legit sources with real names, encyclopedic tone) .

PLEASE help contribute to this. The more people who add to this the more comprehensive and complete it will be.

The only thing I ask is if you write something make sure the citation is from a source with a full and real name. Articles from RoK are only acceptible if they're from a submitter who posts his real name like Roosh.

@Tuth, thanks for your help. Add in and edit what you see fit.

Anyone else who wants to contribute please contribute! Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

You can view my sandbox here and make edits as you see fit. If you can't make edits, it is very simple to make a Wikipedia account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okyou...st/sandbox

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I'd probably contribute if I were assured that my edits would be accepted, but that seems unlikely.

I feel the same way, which gives me pause.

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:03 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I think a chart or Venn diagram might work miracles for making this legitimate and less likely to be questioned by those set on painting the Manosphere incorrectly. Does anyone have professional-level skills in making charts? Once the article is nearly complete, it might make sense to make a chart that shows the distinction between MRAs, PUA Haters, Red Pillers, etc. etc.

Also, I think it's important to use the term Commercial Pick-Up Artists, which I coined in my last ROK piece. It makes an important distinction between regular guys talking about chicks and guys doing workshops and making money and shit like that.

If you make a chart, make sure you get Roosh to write an article on RoK about the groups of the manosphere and release the image as a creative commons copyright. That way we can include it on the wiki page.

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:06 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I'd probably contribute if I were assured that my edits would be accepted, but that seems unlikely.

I feel the same way, which gives me pause.

Your edits will be accepted so long as they fall under the guidelines that wikipedia set. I've mentioned what these are before and the small things you've suggested so far are absolutely within the confines that need to be met!

The meat of the article will most likely stay and smaller typographical edits will be set in to correct flow and the like.

Think of it like an office building. You build the large portion of it and the contributions from other people are things like the lobby, random offices, etc etc.

As you all can see, I'm not a very good writer. The more hands on this, the easier it gets to lift it off the ground!

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:05 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:43 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Try something a bit more crisp, along these lines (it's rough):

The Manosphere is a diverse collection of Internet blogs, men's magazines, discussion forums, and individual commentators whose principle similarity is a focus on men's issues today. Their subjects range from politics to self-improvement to academic matters. Their demographics and geography are similarly diverse. Several women are well-known Manosphere commentators; its members come all over the political spectrum; and some of the most prominent Manosphere communities are based outside of the United States--where it arguably originated.

While Manosphere's origins date back to the late 1990s, its profile has grown in recent years, with the expansion and popularization of...blah blah

You meant 'principal' instead of 'principle.'

The prime flaw with the article as it stands is that it uses the tendentious descriptions of its opponents to describe it, instead of just taking the manosphere's own description of itself. Instead of confining the criticism to a 'Criticism' section, the whole article is criticism.

I'd probably contribute if I were assured that my edits would be accepted, but that seems unlikely.

The funny thing about the 'manosphere' is that the guys who actively use that label are never the PUAs or the MRAs - it's mostly the self-styled 'red pill' people. You'll never hear Mystery or Neil Strauss talking about 'The Manosphere.' The thing that defines member of this forum in my mind is: a commitment to the truth, valuing traditional sex roles, traditional ideals of beauty, self-improvement, and pursuing what you want in life without regard to what society has to say. Establishment authorities are only respected insofar as their message is held to be true.

Basil,

Your edits are absolutely 100% acceptable and needed. At this stage, it is incredibly important that people like you help contribute to this article.

The strength of Wikipedia is its ability to be collectively edited and contributed by multiple people. There are clear guidelines that must be adhered to (no original research, cite legit sources with real names, encyclopedic tone) .

PLEASE help contribute to this. The more people who add to this the more comprehensive and complete it will be.

The only thing I ask is if you write something make sure the citation is from a source with a full and real name. Articles from RoK are only acceptible if they're from a submitter who posts his real name like Roosh.

@Tuth, thanks for your help. Add in and edit what you see fit.

Anyone else who wants to contribute please contribute! Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

You can view my sandbox here and make edits as you see fit. If you can't make edits, it is very simple to make a Wikipedia account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okyou...st/sandbox

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:06 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I'd probably contribute if I were assured that my edits would be accepted, but that seems unlikely.

I feel the same way, which gives me pause.

Good corrections have already been suggested to the article - if I see those corrections implemented, I'll consider contributing something. In other words, you have some good material already, so if that doesn't get in, then whatever I write won't either. If and when those corrections make it in, there will be some assurance that our contribution has a chance of getting in.

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:31 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  

I like how it says: "The manosphere has been criticized by both conservatives and liberals." as if that's the only two ways that someone can identify themself.

Weak minds only think in either-or dichotomies. You'll notice this in a lot of the Yellow Journalism you see on Huffpo or Jezebel: they do a story on abortion clinics and anyone who disagrees is painted as a hate-filled extremist in the article, as if there exists no possible viewpoints between one or another. The lack of offering any viewpoints inbetween the extremes is how you spot agenda, not journalism.

Think of most of the manosphere articles over the last weekend that can't even differentiate between a PUA and a PUA Hater.

As for editing Wikipedia, isn't it pointless? Isn't it just a matter of who gives up first? Do you really think online Feminists have anything else better going on with their lives to not keep the deletion game going for years? Shit, if they possessed any agency to live enjoyable lives they wouldn't be feminists to begin with.

Oh, and fuck Wikipedia. It's part of the deliberate dumbing-down and ultimate destruction of knowledge in society that the advancement of technology masks.

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:13 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:05 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:43 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Try something a bit more crisp, along these lines (it's rough):

The Manosphere is a diverse collection of Internet blogs, men's magazines, discussion forums, and individual commentators whose principle similarity is a focus on men's issues today. Their subjects range from politics to self-improvement to academic matters. Their demographics and geography are similarly diverse. Several women are well-known Manosphere commentators; its members come all over the political spectrum; and some of the most prominent Manosphere communities are based outside of the United States--where it arguably originated.

While Manosphere's origins date back to the late 1990s, its profile has grown in recent years, with the expansion and popularization of...blah blah

You meant 'principal' instead of 'principle.'

The prime flaw with the article as it stands is that it uses the tendentious descriptions of its opponents to describe it, instead of just taking the manosphere's own description of itself. Instead of confining the criticism to a 'Criticism' section, the whole article is criticism.

I'd probably contribute if I were assured that my edits would be accepted, but that seems unlikely.

The funny thing about the 'manosphere' is that the guys who actively use that label are never the PUAs or the MRAs - it's mostly the self-styled 'red pill' people. You'll never hear Mystery or Neil Strauss talking about 'The Manosphere.' The thing that defines member of this forum in my mind is: a commitment to the truth, valuing traditional sex roles, traditional ideals of beauty, self-improvement, and pursuing what you want in life without regard to what society has to say. Establishment authorities are only respected insofar as their message is held to be true.

Basil,

Your edits are absolutely 100% acceptable and needed. At this stage, it is incredibly important that people like you help contribute to this article.

The strength of Wikipedia is its ability to be collectively edited and contributed by multiple people. There are clear guidelines that must be adhered to (no original research, cite legit sources with real names, encyclopedic tone) .

PLEASE help contribute to this. The more people who add to this the more comprehensive and complete it will be.

The only thing I ask is if you write something make sure the citation is from a source with a full and real name. Articles from RoK are only acceptible if they're from a submitter who posts his real name like Roosh.

@Tuth, thanks for your help. Add in and edit what you see fit.

Anyone else who wants to contribute please contribute! Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

You can view my sandbox here and make edits as you see fit. If you can't make edits, it is very simple to make a Wikipedia account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okyou...st/sandbox

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:06 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 02:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I'd probably contribute if I were assured that my edits would be accepted, but that seems unlikely.

I feel the same way, which gives me pause.

Good corrections have already been suggested to the article - if I see those corrections implemented, I'll consider contributing something. In other words, you have some good material already, so if that doesn't get in, then whatever I write won't either. If and when those corrections make it in, there will be some assurance that our contribution has a chance of getting in.

What are these suggestions? The ones tuth posted? Tell me what you want in this and I will put it in word for word. Heck i'll even go so far as to find sources to cite.

Right now, the article is sitting in a personal sandbox. It isn't live at all. The more people who contribute to this right now, the better of a chance we all have at getting this live. No matter how big or small your contributions are, they are welcomed and appreciated.

The real test will be once it goes lives. So far what we have is properly cited and written. It will pass the muster of other editors.

I'm picturing something like this, but professionally done (and correctly calibrated for the true overlaps).

   

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:20 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm picturing something like this, but professionally done (and correctly calibrated for the true overlaps).

That's really good. Can you remove the feminst sites and PUA hate from it as they don't really pertain to the manosphere at all?

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:24 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:20 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm picturing something like this, but professionally done (and correctly calibrated for the true overlaps).

That's really good. Can you remove the feminst sites and PUA hate from it as they don't really pertain to the manosphere at all?

The fact that there's no overlap should make that clear. But whatever professionally executed version gets done can omit them if they distract from the truth.

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:28 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:24 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:20 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm picturing something like this, but professionally done (and correctly calibrated for the true overlaps).

That's really good. Can you remove the feminst sites and PUA hate from it as they don't really pertain to the manosphere at all?

The fact that there's no overlap should make that clear. But whatever professionally executed version gets done can omit them if they distract from the truth.

Sure thing, a extra section highlighting the groups within the Manosphere would be good.

Writing this is difficult as hell. I need to be able to write looking from the outside in instead of inside out and i'm too entrenched with the community's perspective. I need to step away for a second.

I would suggest something along the line of adding "What the community considered to be...", "The community explained that...", "Member of the community suggests to..." to adding the point of a thesis first, explain it by using logic, then for the next couple of sentences, incorporate examples and studies to further expand upon it. And then let the readers decide whether or not to believe it or not.

I strongly suggest you to get Roissy into this project. He have many articles on scientific explanation of "game concepts".

There are some really strong point here: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/category/...ates-game/

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:46 PM)Zengling Wrote:  

I strongly suggest you to get Roissy into this project.

That might be a dangerous proposition, given the direction his site has turned in the last couple of years.

I would caution against getting too many cooks into the kitchen in general. There already a lot of people chiming in. (I don't absolve myself from having butted my nose in.)

I think Dalrock should be included in wiki article.

He says the manosphere is unified in its belief that marriage has been altered significantly since 1960s 2nd wave feminism and this has changed society in a number of ways. Here you could cite stats on divorce rate, alimony payout, single mother families to show why the belief that marriage has changed is not unreasonable.

There are three main camps according to Dalrock : traditionalists who want to restore old school marriage, PUAs and game sites that advocate individual adaption in a free for all setup, and MRA and MGTOW who advocate collective action aimed at reforming legal system and don't have any interest in taking advantage of sexual opportunities.

Feminists tend to argue that marriage is not broken and men should accept present system. Mainstream media is likewise supportive and uncritical of marriage in present form.

Save and back up the files. They will be deleted and you can quickly reupload it. And I would post on conservapedia and other wiki sites as well. This could even be made into a roosh blog entry or a ROK entry, granted it would have to be broken down into sections for readability.

Another idea : If you mirror the wiki article entry on feminism (except from manosphere perspective) then it will be harder to show bias:

For example, here is the opening paragraphs from 'Feminism' wiki article:

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]

Feminist theory, which emerged from feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of sex and gender.[4][5] Some of the earlier forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle-class, educated perspectives. This led to the creation of ethnically specific or multiculturalist forms of feminism.[6]


^ Replace 'Feminism' with 'Manosphere' and change sentences accordingly while keeping same structure.

Can we replace Manosphere with Masculism instead? It's the direct opposite to Feminism.

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:46 PM)Zengling Wrote:  

I strongly suggest you to get Roissy into this project.

I strongly suggest you do not get Roissy into this project, or use him as a source.

Quote: (05-31-2014 05:51 PM)Zengling Wrote:  

Can we replace Manosphere with Masculism instead? It's the direct opposite to Feminism.

After looking at their web page on wikipedia it appears we have a very similar view to them.

They sound kind of like MRAs.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

Quote: (05-31-2014 03:20 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm picturing something like this, but professionally done (and correctly calibrated for the true overlaps).

What I would suggest is to put a box labeled 'Manospehre' around the linked bubbles on the right and say a box labeled 'Misogyny/Misandry' or 'Gender Extremists' or something like that around the two bubbles on the left.

Quote: (05-31-2014 05:51 PM)Zengling Wrote:  

Can we replace Manosphere with Masculism instead? It's the direct opposite to Feminism.

Terrible idea. This renders us a bizarro feminism that only stands against feminism.

Not sure if you're trolling, but all of your suggestions seemed designed to short circuit this project. Given that you only have 44 posts, that's not far-fetched.

Quote: (05-31-2014 06:41 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 05:51 PM)Zengling Wrote:  

Can we replace Manosphere with Masculism instead? It's the direct opposite to Feminism.

Terrible idea. This renders us a bizarro feminism that only stands against feminism.

I was going to say something like that. I think it would be a weak frame if we mimic their words(admittedly, mimicking the opposite, but deliberately being contrarian to them is submitting to their frame)

Quote: (05-31-2014 06:41 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-31-2014 05:51 PM)Zengling Wrote:  

Can we replace Manosphere with Masculism instead? It's the direct opposite to Feminism.

Terrible idea. This renders us a bizarro feminism that only stands against feminism.

Not sure if you're trolling, but all of your suggestions seemed designed to short circuit this project. Given that you only have 44 posts, that's not far-fetched.

I agree. We're not the opposite of feminism but more the answer to it. The fact is that women are just as miserable today as men are. Game done well will make everybody better off.

I think Que Enspastic's idea is good as a guideline (mirroring the tone of the feminism article).

Also, it's intellectually dishonest to omit mention of Roissy. That's like doing an anthology of operas and leaving out Der Ring des Nibelungen because Richard Wagner was a proto-Nazi. Speaking of Nazis, one of the foundational texts of the manosphere was published in a holocaust denial journal - referring to Roger Devlin of course. There are probably many scholars who've written about the sexes in a way that we've found valuable, and these scholars held otherwise objectionable views, eg quasi-fascist Julius Evola.

It would be good to describe the manosphere as a modern movement, but many historical precedents and comrades in arms, eg Esther Vilar, Schopenhauer, Nietzche, etc.

This is a good media reference: http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-dating-game