[TonySandos]

(05-30-2014 10:31 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

I'd like to volunteer this for an intro. If you want to use it let me know and I can get the sources together.


The manosphere is a collection of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to romantic, political, social, physical, and economic issues concerning men. Male self-improvement is another major theme that emerges in much of the manosphere’s literature. Many manosphere websites and blogs are run by men, though not all are. The manosphere is diverse, with writers coming from various age, racial, national and geographic backgrounds. The manosphere can be divided into many different groupings, with Mens Rights Activists, Pick Up Artists, and Men Going Their Own Way being the primary groupings. Though there can be overlap with these groups—for example, MRAs like Obsidian of the website Just Four Guys also practices the “Game” of Pick Up Artists—this overlap cannot be taken for granted, as, for another example, the PUA/self-improvement site Return of Kings has published multiple articles criticizing the MRA movement. The MRA site A Voice for Men does not publish articles on Game. Vox Popoli, who runs a popular game site, is uninterested in the fate of men who are outside his particular sphere of interests. Some MGTOW practice Game, others do not and look down upon the PUA scene. Etc. This nuance is often a point of confusion for critics of the manosphere, who tend to group all manosphere sites under the label of MRA, which is inaccurate and misleading.

Game as a theory itself should have an introduction. Most people aren't familiar with game. They simply know the word from hearing it repeated by pundits and the like

[JoyStick]

(05-30-2014 11:20 AM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 10:54 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 09:42 AM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

No, frenchie is right. Enough citations and the page will be legit.

Book citations count more. Red Pill Room published a book with manosphere in the title, which chronicles the various blogs. It was pre-ROK and has some editing problems (I'm told) but might be a good place to start.

Can you point me to this?

Boom: The Manosphere: A New Hope for Masculinity by Ian Ironwood

The blogger would probably help you if you asked him. This is his site.

he's a forum member and the mod of the red pill reddit.

[internet alpha]

There is no such thing as bad publicity. As long as people talk about you it will pique other people's interest. And like Huey said when niggaz is mad at you, you doing something right.

[Sumanguru]

(05-30-2014 11:37 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 10:31 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

I'd like to volunteer this for an intro. If you want to use it let me know and I can get the sources together.


The manosphere is a collection of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to romantic, political, social, physical, and economic issues concerning men. Male self-improvement is another major theme that emerges in much of the manosphere’s literature. Many manosphere websites and blogs are run by men, though not all are. The manosphere is diverse, with writers coming from various age, racial, national and geographic backgrounds. The manosphere can be divided into many different groupings, with Mens Rights Activists, Pick Up Artists, and Men Going Their Own Way being the primary groupings. Though there can be overlap with these groups—for example, MRAs like Obsidian of the website Just Four Guys also practices the “Game” of Pick Up Artists—this overlap cannot be taken for granted, as, for another example, the PUA/self-improvement site Return of Kings has published multiple articles criticizing the MRA movement. The MRA site A Voice for Men does not publish articles on Game. Vox Popoli, who runs a popular game site, is uninterested in the fate of men who are outside his particular sphere of interests. Some MGTOW practice Game, others do not and look down upon the PUA scene. Etc. This nuance is often a point of confusion for critics of the manosphere, who tend to group all manosphere sites under the label of MRA, which is inaccurate and misleading.

Game as a theory itself should have an introduction. Most people aren't familiar with game. They simply know the word from hearing it repeated by pundits and the like

You could just link the first usage of Game to the Game Wiki page.

Is there a Wiki page for Game?

[TonySandos]

I looked for it when I first started browsing this forum and didn't find one.

[polar]

Roosh, if you published a moderate piece on the manosphere with talking points and summaries it might be citable

I'll take a look at this tonight...Sounds like fun.

[Tuthmosis]

This has been a drama-filled week around here.

Am I "notable" enough to be in this article? I think I hold some manosphere records and firsts, if that helps.

[LEMONed IScream]

oh please, someone edit the damn page! This is disgusting!

[Tuthmosis]

(05-30-2014 09:19 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

D. Different Groups and Sites and what they stand for.

I think this part needs to make a point to mention how these various groups are often at odds in their views on fundamental issues--making a clear distinction between MRAs and "men's interest" sites focused on self improvement (as I did here in my note on "collapsing men's groups").

You may also want to consider having a separate sub-section on "PUAHate and Other Groups Opposed to the Manosphere" to underscore their position as one of the vocal critics and oppositional groups to the Manosphere. You can include how they're implicated in the Elliot Rodger tragedy, to clarify the picture for all the idiots saying he was interested in and belonged to the Manosphere, when it was actually the direct opposite.

[KorbenDallas]

Good luck gents, but I don't have high hopes for this. Wikipedia's editors (I think there is like 100 super editors) are very socialist/feminist/Democratic Party supporters (whatever word you want to use, you know what I mean) and don't really tolerate dissent.

A recommendation I would make is write a long detailed article on Conservapedia. I understand its not as popular, but you'll article will likely be untouched, and there will be something out there as a counterweight to the wikipedia article.

At the end of the day though, almost everybody I talk to is Red Pill. It might just be from the lack of time I've spent on the American Coasts, but this media campaign won't work. With divorce being 55% every single young person in America has been affected by this crap or at the very least they know a bunch of guys who have been. Plus, the whole college rape stuff is backfiring. It's making people more misogynistic because they are seeing how unjust it is.

[JoyStick]

This is like the internet version of the movie 300. It's like a gazillion people vs us! WE ARE SPARTA!

[Tuthmosis]

(05-30-2014 12:55 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

A recommendation I would make is write a long detailed article on Conservapedia.

I think this would be a mistake. We should be aiming for being an apolitical or, more accurately, a pan-political movement. We don't want to be pigeonholed as strictly a conservative movement. For one, that's not the case. Secondly, that makes it a lot easier to dismiss and bankrupts us of our diversity.

From my Reddit AMA a few months back:

   

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Father's rights advocate/lawyer Glenn Sacks' old articles make for excellent sources.

Before there was a manosphere, there was Sacks. He wrote a lot about men's issues in mainstream newspapers (Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune) as far back as 2001.

Sacks also used to put out an e-newsletter and was affiliated with a group called Father and Families. Most of you came along after Sacks' heyday, but in his time he was a strong voice -- perhaps the only mainstream voice -- for these topics.

Although Sacks isn't as active in men's issues anymore, he keeps his old Web site up-and-running. Happily, he has a page devoted to his old columns (http://www.glennsacks.com/columns.php).

While you won't find mention of the manosphere per se in these columns, they do provide sources for topics like men's depiction in advertising, gender bias in pay, and paternity fraud. If these issues need to be mentioned in the Wikipedia manosphere entry, I'd rather see Sacks' work linked than that of Hannah Rosin or someone like her. Sacks was doing this first and best.

[KorbenDallas]

I agree Tuth. And I hope the Wikipedia article works out.

What I was saying that the editors at Wikipedia are manginas. The Super Editors are like the Vice Guys. The most likely case is that a mostly Jezebel written article is put up, with maybe one concession for a small, Taki Magazine sourced neutral point.

If thats the case, which I suspect it will be, the choice would be, let it stand, or define the Manosphere on our terms elsewhere as a counterweight, so, that when people search the term on google, more than just the wikipedia article pops up.

On the conservapedia article you could even explicitly state that the movement is apolitical.

Yes, the manosphere should be apolitical, but life isn't always clear cut and fair. An example is the anti-war movement under Bush. Ron Paul's supporters got a lot of press for their anti-war rallies under Bush, but under Obama, the anti-war/occupation movement has been ignored. So, the anti-war movement now is classified as an 'Old Right Racist Isolationist Movement' by the mainstream press. It doesn't make it so, there are liberals in the anti-war movement, but thats where they get classified. The hardcore anti-war people didn't stop protesting though, and take whatever press they can get, even if its only on Alex Jones.

My point is, you take what you can sometimes. The question might be simply to let the Jezebels article be left unchallenged or to use a conservative space to challenge it. It's better to have something well written to define you than nothing at all.

[The Beast1]

(05-30-2014 01:06 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 12:55 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

A recommendation I would make is write a long detailed article on Conservapedia.

I think this would be a mistake. We should be aiming for being an apolitical or, more accurately, a pan-political movement. We don't want to be pigeonholed as strictly a conservative movement. For one, that's not the case. Secondly, that makes it a lot easier to dismiss and bankrupts us of our diversity.

From my Reddit AMA a few months back:

I like this submission here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_t...Manosphere

The reason it was deleted was because it did not have enough cited sources. Too much of it was original research. There was a book mentioned in this thread that is an excellent source of an actual published material. That is the gold standard of citations as far as wikipedia goes.

I'm still at work so I can't really focus on this. But our work is cut out for us at this point. We need citations to sprinkle onto this article for it to stick.

It's also good to see that other people view the Manosphere as a "pan-political" movement. That can be added into the introduction to make the content material more settling.

[Sumanguru]

I agree the panpolitical nature, and diversity of the manosphere, should be highlighted in any entry. Girl Writes What, Judgy Bitch, Obsidian, Althlone, all the people who shatter the stereotype that only white males get involved with the sphere while contributing quality ideas should get a mention.

How deep should we go into the philosophy? Will the Dark Enlightenment be mentioned at all?

I'd also be curious as to how figures like Patrice O'Neal, Tommy Sotomayor, and Bill Burr will be categorized.

[iwjan]

As far as published sources, Rollo's first book The Rational Male comes to mind.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rational-Male-...1492777862

Here are a few links that popped in my head regarding early Manosphere:

The Book of Bonecrker

The Book of Pook

Dick Masterson's Men Are Better Than Women

Pastebin of old CH Maxims

BRIFFAULT’S LAW

Relevant manosphere links that have a more political or debate focus:

Alpha Is Assumed

Anonymous Conservatives Touching the Raw Amygdala

[Renzy]

What about Roger Devlin's articles as a source?

He doesn't get mentioned that much around here (that I've seen) but IMO his article Sexual Utopia in Power expresses red-pill views, and how we arrived at our current cultural state, in an almost academic fashion. He also cites references at the end of his articles.

I also recall academic journal articles showing up on Heartiste's site under the category Science Validates Game.

[TonySandos]

Patrice O'Neill and the likes could be mentioned as inspirations, namely for providing a basis that many men have the same epiphanies, but don't endorse that thinking to others or only to closest friends.

Pop culture references for a manosphere creation could give it another layer

[The Beast1]

You guys are great. Thanks for the help on this.

[Jackreacher]

Feminist makes a wack manosphere page and now it gets edited for neutrality with links to good sites so more guys find it creating more exposure in the long run.

[Libertas]

(05-30-2014 04:56 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manosphere

It claims:

(1) PUA Hate was a "notable" member of the manosphere
(2) The manosphere praised the killings
(3) Manosphere site are similar to white supremacist sites

It's essentially a Jezebel article disguised as an encyclopedia entry (perhaps worse). I thought Wikipedia aimed for neutrality?

Amazing.

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about neutrality.

[bacan]

I started laughing after the first sentence ended with ".. promote an extremely misogynistic and masculist worldview"

[polar]

Quote:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism,
a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Feminism on Wikipedia.

[runsonmagic]

Counter purge. Everytime someone writes a piece on a feminist, make sure it shows up as a citation in the "controversies" section of their wikipedia page.