Talk:Manosphere glossary/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 September 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


Isle of Man[edit]

The Isle of Man was the first 'state' to give women the vote. 'Nuff said. (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


Just wondering, why isn't this mainspace, rather than funspace?-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 19:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good lord. You mean all of these entries are used seriously, somewhere? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
...I thought so-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Since it's purpose seems to be mockery, not enlightenment, I think that in its current form Funspace is exactly where it belongs. Also, it conflates the Greek alphabet soup with the concept of Nice Guys.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I see your point. Maybe if I feel like it, I'll do something about it later.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 20:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be good for main if it stuck to jargon, phrases & concepts specific to the MRA movement, without the crap about cats, Sweden, etc. Not sure about the tone either: snark is fine, but writing the whole thing as if from a (somewhat exaggerated) MRA POV seems a bit heavy-handed. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 21:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why I returned it from main- to Funspace. If it's in main, it should convey useful information, and the snark shouldn't detract from that. The Alpha/Betta stuff for example is horridly written.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Commercials + sitcoms[edit]

Okay, while I agree that it's stupid to use these to say "men have it as bad as women", saying that they are irrelevant because of the really bad stuff that happens to women, is simply not right. It's like saying "oh, you have dysentery? Well, you could have sepsis, which would be a lot worse, so we're not gonna treat you". The thing is, there are quite a few stereotypes that hurt both genders in commercials and sitcoms, and MRAs are just focusing on the ones that affect males. While they often come to false conclusions based on these ("it's the feminists' fault", "men are more oppressed"), addressing these stereotypes, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Therefore , I am going to remove this point. (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What is THIS word?[edit]

I noticed the term "normalfagging" being used in MRA circles. I have no clue what this insanely offensive word means but should we add it? ClothCoat (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it means a person with traditional values/ethics/interests. Did it come from MRA websites? I've seen it elsewhere and I think it might be a 4chan thing --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I know I've seen MRA types use it but I don't know where it originated. Oddly enough I can't find a definition for it anywhere. If it means what you say it means I honestly don't understand why being socially conservative is refered to by that word but you're probably right regardless. ClothCoat (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I found an example of 'normalfag' on Urban Dictionary and it seems to be largely what I presumed it was [1], at least in the first definition. Either way I think it's one of the more stupid terms they use --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Originally, I misread that as "normalflagging". *facepalm*
Anyway, the "Xfag" and "Xtard" snowclones, where X can be pretty much anything, are common among certain Internet demographics. The inhabitants of 4chan are one, but I've seen "doomtard" and "Nibirutard" on GLP.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The "-fag" thing was started on 4chan. Essentially, every poster on 4chan is a "fag", so a prefix is added based on the context. MLP:FM fans are "ponyfags", Furry enthusiasts are "furfags", transexual fans are "trapfags" and so on an so forth. "Normalfags" are the same thing as "Normies" and similar terms, basically a blanket term for the world outside of Chan culture, or those who don't self-identifdy as being a member of one of the various subcultures. As a lot of 4chan posters self-identify/diagnose as having Asperger's syndrome, "Normalfags" are persons they percieve as not falling along the autism spectrum. I assume that MRA's have appropriated the term for persons not engaged in "the game". Petey Plane (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
To the point where they had to coin "fagfag" for actual fags - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
And not "gayfag" or "faggot"?--Arisboch (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
No, those are just "fags". Despite 4chan's deserved reputation as hive of scum and misogyny, i'd estimate that nearly 50% of the threads in the "/b/" sub-forum (Random, basically what the non-4chan think of when they think of 4chan) are nominally pro-LGBTQ, in that they are transsexual (traps) and gay furry porn. At this point on 4chan, "fag" just refers to a poster in /b/, and is not pejorative. In fact, i believe using "-friend" (i.e. Ponyfriend, normalfriend) is considered derogatory in /b/.Petey Plane (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue pills[edit]

Does the 'another meaning' to the term have any significance in this context? (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Viagra? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The former is what most people would think on encountering the term (and is one way of derailing the discussion). (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Or, in other words, extreme sexual frustration. Mainly from going a long time without. My best guess, from what I gathered. Not sure why "thirst" is used, but there you are. Chair tater (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Used by whom? Don't think I've seen this. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Best way to find out, is by Googling: tater (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior[edit]

It seems to be spouted a lot by Thunderf00t and his ilk, unfortunately my depression has already kicked in so I'd rather not make it worse by watching a load of their videos to find a good definition. It would be nice if somebody on here could provide one. TheSocktor (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a manosphere term. It's used very frequently by people, often former or current Tumblr users, who are annoyed by some of the blogs on Tumblr. These people often have various characteristics of Very Serious People. Basically they're the "don't shove your cause into my face, please, I don't know if I want to care, but I'm getting annoyed". Nullahnung (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


Is it just me, or is it not possible to read this word without the Ricky Ricardo voice? "Lucy! I got some mansplainin' to do!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


I'm no expert, but from what I recall the definition given for hypergamy is how the word is used by sociologists. When used in the manoshpere, it means something like "men are willing to have sex with any woman who isn't ugly, but women are only willing to have sex with hot men, making it difficult or impossible for average looking men to get any sex". -- Matthew Cline (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was about women having some innate tendency to go for men who are richer than them, and that before welfare, etc. were brought in, making it possible for women to survive without a husband, women were effectively forced to marry whoever they could find. Now with these things, they are able to only go after rich men, making it damn near impossible for a poor man to get married. TheSocktor (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought hypergamy was basically used as a more scientific-sounding, and therefore less biased, synonym for promiscuity. See [2] and [3] (female hypergamy) and [4] (male hypergamy). Landmartian (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Help, I've Been "Framed"! :P[edit]

Got another one for you: "Keep/Maintain Frame". Basically, in their own words, this: Or, TL;DR version: keep your shit together. Again, why this form (or "frame") of terminology, I have no idea. Chair tater (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

I went ahead and cleaned up this article and a few related articles - I added additional content and links as well, and replaced snark with more neutral and factually written content. The ratio of "snark to substance" shouldn't be excessive - I also added additional content and links.-- (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't clean up anything, just whitewashed over a lot of unpleasantness surrounding PUA & MRA culture which is the whole point of the article. We have no obligation to be neutral about this or any other subject and this "ratio" you keep talking about isn't even a thing. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Nice to hear a real response from you. I didn't wash over anything - there's no obligation to be "neutral" but that doesn't mean that an article should read like a Reddit post, which this article did. Removing ad homs isn't "whitewashing". And pointing out positives isn't ignoring the claims about the pseudoscientific and controversial nature. For example an article I wrote about a creationist mentioned he's a member of MENSA - that's not apologizing for him or his pseudoscience, it's just adding additional information. By your standard putting that in the article would mean I'm "pro-creationist" since I put something "good" about him in the article.
My edits mentioned that there is content overlap, and that many PUA sources also include mainstream dating and lifestyle advice unrelated to "NLP", misogeny, and the other "woo"-type content. Mentioning this is not "pro-PUA" or "pro-MRA", and there's no rule against his either. As for MRA, this site does include articles on actual radical feminist/supremacy groups - so I distinguished that the anti-feminist attitude the article is referring to is directed at all of feminism.
You're basically claiming that the article is "pro-PUA/MRA" if it includes any content at all which is not 100% reflecting of "bad" - that's not the case at all. The main difference between PUA and mainstream dating advice is the reliance on pseudoscientific "tactics", and the emphasis on the "numbers game" aspect of sleeping with as many women as possible - I was comparing and contrasting the two, and point out that there is overlap in the community -- (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm with BON. His/her edits added some info and minisculely tilted article's POV. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks I appreciate that. Not to mention I've done research into a lot of the PUA sites and resources. Some for example promote skeptical science such as NLP, but do not promote the "numbers game" aspect or the misogynistic view of women, while others are just misogynist rant sites with no focus on actual science at all. So I want to distinguish the types of content that various sites contain - this article and others presented them as being all identical, but they're actually very diverse. Some are actually polar opposites in fact - such as ReturnOfKings, which is all about "getting laid with as many chicks as possible", and the MGTOW sites, which actually promote abstaining from women entirely. The messages are basically polar opposite extremes, but they all get lumped into the same "manosphere", etc (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
They're really not polar opposites at all: they both promote a view that most or all women are sluts; they just take a different approach to this. See this for example, posted by a red piller at Return of Kings. It's pretty much indistinguishable from something you might find on a MGTOW forum or blog. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the "women are sluts" jist being similar, though their MO is radically different. Another problem I have though, is that for example, there's a dating coaching service who's books I read who are the opposite of this article, they do not promote that "women are sluts" at all and that female sexuality is a natural thing - they also promote that men not use this advice to manipulate or take advantage of women and condemn the PUA sites which are just a "numbers game". However I've seen his website listed in various places online as a "PUA site", even though his content doesn't meet any of this misogynistic criteria (unless someone believes non-married/committed sex is misogynistic or immoral in itself). Since the PUA-term doesn't have an official meaning, it makes me concerned that legitimate dating advice sources are getting lumped into the same category as "ReturnOfKings" type nonsense.-- (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Who are you talking about? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Sex" entry[edit]

I say keep because (1) it's snarky, (2) it explains the inflated value of sex in the manosphere, and (3) it makes ~15 inpage links work again. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

~15 inpage links you put there. That's a non-argument. The inflated value of sex in the manosphere is kind of an obvious point but if you think it needs to be spelled out, put it in the manosphere article rather than this article - which is supposed to be a glossary of terms, not a compendium of general observations about the manosphere. Same goes for entries on feminism, misogyny, foreign women, western women, etc. These aren't manosphere-specific terms; they're standard English words & phrases. The article has been padded out with these kind of entries before & it was one of the main things that contributed to it being kicked to funspace & having to be overhauled. See the fossil record & the discussion at the top of this talk page. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's valid to say that words with similar meanings in standard English and in the manosphere should be removed. The manosphere puts a peculiar and unique spin on words that should mean the same thing. For example, a "bad boy" in standard English is the same as in the manosphere: a male who is an asshole, often to women. However, the manosphere takes this word and makes it the center of a complaint about women's sexuality. Hence, the word means the same, but is used differently.
I also don't think it's valid to say that these words have similar meanings in standard English and in the manosphere. For example, to many, "Feminism" is the pursuit of equal rights for all genders; however, the manosphere sees "Feminism" as taking rights away from males.
Finally, I don't think the analogy to the previous overhaul is valid. Before, many of the entries were entirely snark ("feminism = plot by the joos and illuminaati") , with little or no information. The entries on Feminism, Misandry, Misogyny, Foreign Women, and Western Women all convey information about how the manosphere views the world, in addition to snark. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If Weaseloid does not respond within 1 day, I will re-add the sex entry. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think sex, defined as "like a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy" etc, is much different from expunged entries such as cats, "an animal which every unmarried woman over the age of 30 owns a minimum of 20 of". It's not terminology; at best it's a snarky presentation of an observation, but really closer to being a strawman.
Sex isn't a word that has different meanings within & outside the manosphere. It means sexual intercourse. Nobody will come to page looking for sex (as it were) & wondering what it means. People have different opinions about or preoccupations with sex, but that's not a different definition. In fact, there's nothing in the text you wrote for sex that constitutes a definition; it's just general comment which as I've pointed out doesn't belong in a glossary of terms. & It's just opening the door for more lazy cliché entries such as fedora, mom's basement, etc.
You can have the "two kinds of feminism" thing if that's a common trope. It sounds vaguely familiar but I suggest citing an example. "Radical feminism" is probably worth mentioning too as a snarl word broadly applied by people who don't understand it (both within & outside the manosphere). WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
So basically if we're going to have those kinds of entries in here, someone should create a page in the Fun: namespace or something. Landmartian (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I included "sex" not for the "black hole" snark, but for this part: "Sex is so important to residents of the manosphere that even opponents of the manosphere are assumed to be working towards the goal of sex. For example, [[#Knight|''White Knights'']] are often assumed to oppose the manosphere in order to get sex from those that they are defending." Said observation is already included in the white knight article, so it doesn't really need to go elsewhere or even necessarily here, but I added it here to try to give more context for how sex is viewed.
If we keep the other snark-ish entries, I definitely think that I could let "sex" go, though.
Yeah, radfems definitely deserve inclusion. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh my god[edit] wiki entry: Involuntary trouser defecation. Can we get an entry on that, please? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to use It seems redundant with a rel="nofollow". Landmartian (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't hurt. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 05:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
But what's the point? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It's annoying because if people just put a barelink, readers can't tell where it leads to without clicking on it. Landmartian (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Better logic[edit]

Be a beta.

Enjoy your 20s - go round the world, become a reasonable cook, and get 'a good enough job/career'.

When you are in your 30s - sit on The Wall and get hooked up.

Alphas will hit The Wall as well - what 'hot babe' will wish to link up with a 35+ would-be-schmoozer (who is not a sugar daddy or otherwise adds to her lifestyle/cachet?) (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

mmmhkay FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
? Alternative word?

Basically - acquire 'a sufficiency of practical skills and indications of reasonable prospects' and enjoy yourself in your spare time (and, if possible, your work) - whichever gender you are.

'All mou' and no trews' comes to mind (and a gigolo probably has a more enjoyable life). (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


I thought a beta was the kind of guy who plays it safe in life, e.g. by going to college and entering a profession rather than dropping out and becoming an entrepreneur or doing something else that's relatively risky. Betas are the guys women marry because they provide a stable income, in contrast to the alphas, whom they'd be more likely to look to for a one-night stand or something. This glossary seems to conflate betas with AFCs. Betas get laid, but are more likely to have a monogamous reproductive strategy. Landmartian (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally I've seen "beta" used to describe men who aren't aggressive, physically or sexually. (See the lists at the end of the page)
It's probably both, to some extent. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
My definition above is a variant of this.

There is an element of 'sour grapes'/'whistling in the wind'/sneaky feeling that the betas might be having a better time in the long run about the definitions.

If you cut enough notches in the bedposts the legs will fall off - and many snowflakes make a blizzard.

What is the difference #apart from gender# (and possibly 'irregular verb' - I am firm, you are stubborn, he is as obstinate as a mule') between 'alpha' and 'carousel'? (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much nothing. Hence why incels & MGTOW hate on both. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
What's so weird is how much disdain and active hate they have for those they imagine to be inferior submissives. "Those darn female and beta SJWs stopping us from living our tough-guy lives." Ikanreed (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
"(cur | prev) 19:19, 9 January 2015‎ TheSocktor (Talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (-114)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Weaseloid (talk) to last revision by (undo)" - Just FTR, I have no idea how I did this. Sorry. TheSocktor (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems like both alphas and betas feel victimized by the other, and/or by women. Alphas view themselves as victims of a joint feminist/beta effort to badmouth alphas, whilst betas bitterly say stuff like "All the good ones go for jerks, you know that." (h/t Pitts from Dead Poets Society)
It's sort of like how both jocks and nerds feel like the other has the upper hand. Theoretically, nerds are in control of society because they have multi-billion-dollar software companies; they've set up a government to protect the physically weak from aggressors; etc. But Bryan Caplan claims that "Through the lens of the Jock/Nerd Theory of History, the welfare state doesn't look like a serious effort to 'equalize outcomes.' It looks more like a serious effort to block the 'revenge of the nerds'—to keep them from using their financial success to unseat the jocks on every dimension of social status." So in other words, according to some nerds, the government is controlled by jocks seeking to oppress nerds. Landmartian (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The "Jock/Nerd Theory of History"? What the fuck? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Weaseloid. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
And I bet they haven't discovered slashfic (basic premise - female author can't decide which male character she would prefer to Mary-Sue-fanfic so has them both). (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

At what point[edit]

Do 'Alphas' become 'Omegas'? Apart from age the numbers game (and supposed outcomes thereof) will become a turnoff. (It takes a certain amount of forward planning to become a roué/gigolo) (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whenever happens to be convenient for the argument the manosphere denizen is currently making. It's not like there's an actual meaningful biological or sociological distinction here. Ikanreed (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Good post! FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Us not in the manosphere are likely to place the transition somewhat earlier than 'alphas' discussing others (and may well prefer the [5]) - as likely to be more fun). (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

So how does a 50-year old Alpha 'operate' - and where do cougars and dominatrices fit in to the argument? (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


Would 'I dumped her because she was (frigid/snarl word of similar nature)' = 'She ditched me for having no manners'/'She found someone with a longer attention span than a goldfish' fit here? (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a word or phrase. That's more like an excuse, and almost everyone does it sometimes, not just manospheroids. Ikanreed (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Piece of meat[edit]

"They often use it as a noun, showing not only their willingness to think of a woman as a piece of meat, but also a terrible lack of creativity." That reminds me of how people say that if you call someone "a schizophrenic" you're reducing them down to that one characteristic. Instead you should say "a person with schizophrenia". But there's no difference, because either way you're only revealing one characteristic of the person in question. Whether you use it as a noun or an adjective is irrelevant.

It's also usually only when it's an attribute people don't like to be associated with, that they want the circumlocution. For example, people don't mind being called "RationalWikians" rather than "people who use RationalWiki" or "Christians" rather than "people who believe in Christianity" or "teacher" rather than "person who is employed as a teacher". Basically the point of the circumlocution is to make it so cumbersome to say what they want to say that they won't say it. Landmartian (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're bringing this up here rather than at our person-first language article? Are you suggesting a specific change to the text on this page? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason was that I was unaware of that article. Um...carry on. Landmartian (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Matrix = left-wing ideas[edit]

Where'd that came from? Matrix is rather apolitical.--Arisboch (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The "other" pills[edit]

I saw a reference on FSTDT to something called the "black pill", and I came here looking for a definition. No luck. Without having (ugh) dig into their sites, what does that phrase refer to? Something shitty, sure. But I'd just like to know how these idiots think they're special. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The idea that feminism is a systemic problem that will endure and that red-pill BS is selling itself out? I dunno the coherence level of what all I've read hasn't been great. PacWalker 14:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a bunch of these stupid charts get posted on /pol/ & suchlike from time to time but I don't think any of these terms have really become common other than red & blue. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Can one get these pills from 'the sp#m folder adverts along with V...a, and suchlike? (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Huh? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The pills which are normally advertised via your email account's spam folder which purportedly rectify 'a male problem.' (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Gwenhwyfar? Is this a thing?[edit]

Or in other words, the Welsh version of I've seen this pop up from time to time. I mean, these guys do know that's a mythological figure, right? Chair tater (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to a Gwenhwyfar in the wild? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Just look for the Disqus (set to "New" posts) post by "Just Tim" in this article: Chair tater (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

/r/TheBluePill thinks it's hilarious[edit]

Quote: "RationalWiki is a treasure. I love what we do here, but sometimes, reading about TRP's hamstering in near-academic prose is just what I need." FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 23:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We've been taken over![edit]

Original post at /r/theredpill:

Joyous reaction from /r/thebluepill:

Good to know RationalWiki is but a mere pawn in the SJW WarsTM. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 19:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We're loved[edit]

"I love RationalWiki", links to this image. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


I could see an article. Opening quote? [6] oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I proposed cuckold as a standalone article on the to do list. Not much on that quote - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Marriage 2.0[edit]

"For bonus points, throw in a provably false accusation of domestic abuse or child molestation; most research shows that this is likely to backfire in real-world divorce or custody cases, to the point where many lawyers will tell a battered wife to keep quiet in the interest of a faster or more equitable split."

It's not so much the provably false claims that people are worried about, but the claims that can be neither proven nor disproven. Suppose, for instance, someone claims they were raped months ago. They didn't tell anyone at the time, and there's no physical evidence. Who's to say what really happened? In civil court, the standard of proof is lower than in criminal court, so it's possible that the court would make a finding that's adverse to the accused, even if the state declined to prosecute.

It's not just battered women who might want to keep quiet rather than bringing up all the possible claims they have against their spouse. Men who are cheated on also may find that they can get a quicker and cheaper divorce through an agreement with their spouse, rather than by hiring a private investigator and going through all the other procedures needed to prove adultery. It can take months just to get into court if a divorce is contested. Landmartian (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"so it's possible that the court would make a finding that's adverse to the accused, even if the state declined to prosecute."
If so, the state *still* thought there was enough evidence to rule that a rape happened, so it certainly isn't impossible to prove.
I changed it to "spouse" to be gender-neutral. Happy? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Gina tingles. "gina tingles". GINA TINGLES[edit]

"'Gina tingles". WHAT ON EARTH.

(yes, I found the ref. But WHAT ON EARTH.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


It was discussed above already. But do we want this entry here? - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. , but modified to be a bit more useful of an entry. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oh yeah, baby!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Yes, but with better snark. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Yes, but should have some acknowledgment of how the all consuming nature of sex to the lives of manopherians has changed their definition of sex into something much different than the rest of society's definition, like "Paravant" said. adds some snark too Petey Plane (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. BluePillers liked it. Feel free to make longer; a short, hyperbolic entry seemed funnier. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. No. The article isn't in funspace any more. It should a glossary of verifiable manosphere terms, as per the rest of the entries, not padded out with miscellaneous comments about the manosphere. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Note: this is about the entry for sex. Original title made it clearer, but joke. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. To be fair, they do a lot of whining that isn't explicitly about sex. (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Two ones we don't have[edit]

From Worth adding?

  • Plate Theory (Or Keep Spinning Plates) - Gaming multiple women simultaneously to boost ones sexual market value. Involves plates somehow, idk tho.
  • Rationalization Hamster - The tendency for females to use rationalization to resolve mental conflict and avoid cognitive dissonance. The core mechanism that allows females to say one thing and do a different thing. Females using their brains to think about stuff? Not on my watch. Just another way females are evil and completely control everything.

FuzzyCatPotato of the Loyal Okras (talk/stalk)

Hamster? Hmm, I'll just assume that's the internet being "call it an animal" again. The second one looks good, but as to the first, like you I also don't know - although having multiple girlfriends "on the go" is a known thing. Is it a term used more than once or twice? BicyclewheelModerator 20:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Find examples of these phrases in the wild; not just copy-pasted from another site's glossary. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Plate theory:

Rationalization hamster:

Don't worry, there's plenty more. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the first exemplifies PUA "maximize fucks" culture and the second is a meme and exemplifies the view of PUAs/MRAs on how women think, I'd definitely support adding. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Full Macintosh[edit]

I know its a dumb term, and I'm not sure it fits here, but should we make an effort to include it somewhere? Zero (talk - contributions) 21:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean? (talk) 21:41, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC) Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There are dozens of Gamergate memes. I don't think this page is a good place for listing them. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
We should probably drop Ryulong a few lines at the GG talkpage about this.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It's Gamergate, not manosphere, and even their use of it tends to be a bit forced. Pretty sure it's not worth covering, certainly not here - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It's actually more Anita Sarkeesian seeing as he's her co-writer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

God-awfully long list[edit] Pretty sure most of them aren't used widely, though. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 07:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"reverse jailbait" AUGH MY BRAIN - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
What did I read.gif
From secret society:
"Conversely, if a secret society male is with a non-secret-society male, and a secret society female (all females) decides she wants sex from the secret society male, the friend of the female may have sex with the non-secret-society male, because EVERYONE in the interaction must feel good. However, if the non-secret-society male is blowing himself out so badly that he makes the female member feel very bad emotions, then the secret-society-male must face the consequences of bringing negative emotions into the equation, and lose out on his privilege for sex in that interaction, until he ditches the non-secret-society male. Bear minimum requirements for non-secret-society males being grandfathered in with the male member, is that he not qualify himself or make anyone feel uncomfortable. Failing to meet those requirements, both are blown out."
€₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing women find more attractive than a guy who has to perform a level of mental gymnastics rarely seen outside of Stone Cutter initiations just to engage in the most basic of social interactions. Petey Plane (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


What would it need? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. I could be nitpicky and suggest lovely reference citations rather than bare URLs, but this isn't FAC on Wikipedia. For content it's excellent. Basically, barring objections by (say) 19 Oct, let's silver it - David Gerard (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Omega Rage[edit]

How is that connected to the phrase "beta uprising" coming from the same crowd[citation needed]?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Read this and tell me. FuzzyCatPotato of the Opaque Xenomorphs (talk/stalk) 21:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

your white self being cuckolded by a Negro[edit]

What the flying fuck does that mean? Could someone explain that gibberish??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Insults based on black cuckoldry are common with PUA/MRAs and since the manosphere crosses over quite well with neoreactionaries, and therefor racists, you get this weird dynamic going on. The whole black cuckold fascination with MRAs is strange, but i kind of understand it as: on one hand, they view themselves as superior to blacks, but on the other hand, they buy into the whole "black buck" sexual superiority stereotype. In order to address this conflict (where the inferior is actual superior to them in the one area of life that they hold most dear(sex)) being cuckolded by a black man has become a major insult, as women and minorities are merely slaves to their emotions and lack the personal agency that white men possess. Therefor, it is the beta nature of the insultee that has caused him to be cuckolded, and nothing else. If the beta were to become a true alpha (and posses the sexual prowess of the black man, along with his own white intellect), he would never be cuckolded, as no worthy white woman would ever chose a black man over a white man (if the white man possesses equal perceived sexual prowess). That is my interpretation and like virtually everything in the manosphere, it is incredibly stupid and reductionist.--Petey Plane (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
And claiming the purity of white women is at risk from beastly black men is a racist trope with a bit of a history - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Googling those key words ought to result in something? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(EC)Seems pretty plain, means black guy(or possibly not a guy) having sex with a white guy's wife/girlfriend/whatever, thus the black guy cuckolds the the white guy. SolPyre (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If I remember correctly you aren't a native English speaker, so you may not be picking up on the linguistic allusion to good old timey racism: e.g., "most of the attacks upon white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain". --Ymir (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I was kinda confused about this "white self" being "cuckolded" instead of you being cuckolded by a "Negro"/"alpha-male". Could someone with a better grasp on the language and the ideology of the neoreactionaries rewrite this sentence into something more easy to understand, please?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"your white self" is a way of saying "you" while also making note of your assumed-to-be-white skin colour. (If your skin colour isn't white, chances are you're not the intended audience of the message in question.) (talk) 21:58, 20 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The sentence is fine. It compresses a lot of allusion into a few words, but any native speaker would get the allusions pretty readily - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


'A chap' has a relationship with 'a chapess' and has sex with her as often as he and she want.

This makes him an alpha.

The paradox of the Manosphere Alpha is that he does not get as many pseudo-snowflakes as he desires (perhaps because they think he does not have the staying power).

The sun never set on the British Empire - so not all the Anglosphere is white (and where would an English speaking Turing-test-computer fit into the classification).

And as for the 'red pills' - So raise the scarlet standard high, Beneath its shade we'll live and die,' (Possibly in Tooting.) (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So I found this[edit]

Somehow the word "shill" now means "says things I don't like". FuzzyCatPotato of the Organic Airplanes (talk/stalk) 01:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Demotion to bronze[edit]

I have demoted this to bronze because,in just a short period of time, I have found nothing but bad grammar, typos, and word salads all over this article. These fundamental things must be worked out beforean article is silver, not after. I will continue to work on all the goddamn grammar, spelling, etc. issues, but do not feel it should be silver again until that copyediting is done. Gooniepunk (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Of note: Some of the entries are in-Manosphere perspective and others are commenting on them (and tend to use the word "supposedly"). I'd prefer putting all entries into an uber-Manospheric mindset, since it's funnier and clearer. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In other words putting back in all the lame strawman crap I stripped out when I rescued this from funspace. See prior discussion about this in the archive. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this article is actually good and quite enjoyable to read - although the snark could be quadrupled. So much good material. Tielec01 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem with having it written from the POV of the manosphere is that we need to keep articles to a tone preferable to our perspective. By having written from the perspective of MRAs, there is a distinct possibility of Poe's Law coming into place. Meanwhile, there is still a boat load of cleanup of word salads and grammar to be done before this should even be considered close to "silver" again. Gooniepunk (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, some of the wordings are a bit tortuous. Tielec01 (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Silver again?[edit]

I demoted this to bronze a few weeks ago because there was a lot wrong with it that didn't qualify it as "silver," including just plain old word salads, lots of typos, etc. But now that I've gone through with a fine-toothed comb and cleaned it up and copyedited the shit out of it, I'd like people to re-evaluate it as a silver-level article again. Don't just glance through it; read it character to character and tell me if it is something of "silver" quality. Be anal retentive about it if something is wrong, because only the best quality and best written articles deserve the best article evaluations of gold and silver. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Silvered. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Way to miss the point Fuzzy. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Meant to post that after editting. Sincerest apologies, His Highness. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, since after nobody else seems interested in commenting, I'll just say that if anybody reads through this article and decides it is not, in fact, the crème de la crème of RationalWiki, feel free to bring your issues up here and let's get them addressed. I have no qualms about this being silver level, but that level of quality is an aspiration, not set in stone, and if it truly doesn't live up to the expectations of a silver article, then we need to address that instead of fighting hard to say it does. Gooniepunk (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible incorporation material[edit] FuzzyCatPotato of the Petrifying Squibbles (talk/stalk) 01:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice guys[edit]

With regard to the nice guys: if you imagine a guy who feels like he's done all the stuff that feminists would want him to do, and behaved like a "nice guy," yet still is single, and sees a lot of guys who don't behave as feminists would prescribe having attractive girlfriends on their arms, is it any wonder that he might look to the manosphere for an explanation of why this might be? Where else would he go? What other resource would he look to?

Or, let's say he does get married to a feminist, and then gets mistreated by her, or maybe she divorces him and talks a lot of trash about him; and all the feminists who hear about it take his wife's side. He might think, "Huh, why did this happen? What did I do wrong? This doesn't fit with my image of feminists as fair and even-handed" and go in search of answers. Eventually, when we starts to find that there are a lot of men with similar stories, there will be nowhere else to go but the manosphere for an explanation, since feminists will generally not be interested in having a dialog about that. They will believe that most men with stories like that are self-serving liars. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no trick to achieving a relationship, and no person should base their entire self worth on whether they are single or not. It's true, some women are in relationships with jerks, some women are jerks themselves, and yes, some women who call themselves feminists are terrible people. So what? That doesn't mean you have to be a jerk to attract women, or that women are looking to screw men over. The manosphere preys on men who have been tricked by society into thinking that their only purpose in life is to have sex, and to have it often; and it not only perpetuates this idea, but it also tells men that the only reason they're not having sex is that women have conspired against them. It's a toxic atmosphere that attracts men because it tells them that if they just follow a few tricks, they'll get all the sex that they're "supposed" to be having to have any worth as a man. But the truth is that there are no tricks, and you don't need to have sex to prove your masculinity. That's what feminism is really telling these people. Treat women like actual human beings and not like some kind of demon that wants to prey on men. You're not going to magically get laid by respecting women, but that's not the point. Life isn't about sex and it isn't about proving you're the alpha male. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 23:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I was once introduced to a girl, and I don't exactly remember why, but very quickly she said something along the lines of "you know the holocaust didn't really happen, right?" I felt I had to set that straight, so I tried to convince her that it's all hogwash, which rather impressed her and led to more conversation and various fun activities later. True story. Scepticism can get you laid. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
How alpha of you to challenge what she said rather than sycophantically supplicating. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Creative misunderstanding[edit]

For many people HB - a grade of pencil (neither hard nor soft) and plate theory means plate tectonics (subduction zones and all that). (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Alas, we've been cucked[edit]

The thread is a goldmine of inanity. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


I think this term has morphed. Lately it feels like the new SJW, an insult that means nothing. Thoughts? Zero (talk - contributions) 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It feels like it has both meanings at the same time. A male is a cuck if they are liberal, or if another male is fucking their female -- but I repeat myself. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Depends heavily on context. Some use it as a political term of abuse (for those, who're not racist enough), some use it as a sexual term of abuse (for those, who're not sexist enough), some use it as a general-purpose insult (like, say, SJW, but even more devoid of content), some use it ironically.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be a stand-in for "sissy" or "faggot". On Conservapedia, "liberal pantywaist" seemed to be a popular epithet at one time. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Marriage 2.0[edit]

Is Marriage 2.0 more of a legal or cultural phenomenon? The complaint seems to be that the standard deal of the past isn't available anymore, in which the guy would be breadwinner, his wife would be a housewife, and they would stay together faithfully for life. But were marriages in the past kept together more by laws, or by culture? Even if the law says "you can leave," if you believe you shouldn't leave, then chances are, you won't leave.

On the other hand, even if the law says that you can only leave under x circumstances, if you feel entitled to leave, then you'll find a way to make those x circumstances exist. For example, if the law says that a marriage can be broken up if one of the parties cheats, then all you have to do, to get out of a marriage, is keep cheating (and otherwise mistreating your spouse) till your spouse can't take it anymore and WANTS a divorce, and then sign an affidavit admitting to cheating. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Alpha widow[edit]

Actually, an alpha widow is a chick who got banged by an alpha under the delusion that he was going to maybe stay with her long-term. Hence the "Why won't he call??? He said he was going to call!!!" waiting-by-the-phone obsession. She didn't realize that to him, she was good enough to fuck but not good enough to marry. By the time she does realize this, maybe she's already irrevocably emotionally attached.

The analogous situation for a man is that of the BPD widower. He got emotionally attached to a chick who seemed like his best friend, dream lover, etc. and thought that the relationship would last and that she would continue treating him well and even idolizing him. Then her love turns to hate, she blames him for everything, cheats on him, storms out of the relationship, etc. She either leaves him forever, or keeps recycling him (and a bunch of other guys she keeps around as backups). He may eventually go on the Internet, research this type of behavior, and finally realize what was really going on and why, but by then it's too late; he'll never completely get over her, even though it would seem logical to say, "Oh, she wasn't what I thought she was, so I now should have no feelings for her anymore."

These are legit phenomena, although those who haven't experienced or observed them probably have trouble relating. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The hierarchy[edit]

The alphas > women > betas > omega part of the hierarchy is pretty consistent from one Red Piller to another. The whole concept of an "alpha widow" is based on the idea that most women have trouble locking an alpha down for a long-term monogamous relationship. Beta men, on the other hand, have trouble locking down a woman for a long-term monogamous relationship. When they do, it's usually by agreeing to disadvantageous terms, such as only getting to marry her after she's ridden the alpha cock carousel for so long that her youthful good looks are now gone. Plus the only marriage these guys get is marriage 2.0, which is a pretty one-sided deal. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Bollocks is it. There's plenty of supposed alphas whining in blog posts about how even they are kept down by feminism etc. etc.. Not to mention how, in memes and essays, they claim the mantle of all men for themselves and their fucked up world view. The only consistency is that they'll say whatever shit fits their current attempt to demonise women. And that's not even unpacking the rest of your garbage about the 'alpha cock carousel' (which does not exist) and your paranoia about 'Marriage 2.0'. Fuck's sake man, this entire article debunks that garbage and yet you're using that as justification for a bad edit on it? Queexchthonic murmurings 11:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the alphas get plenty of sex from attractive women, but their complaint is that sex is all they're getting. Once they reach a certain age, they feel ready to make a commitment, but they complain they can't find an American woman worth committing to, or they feel the legal environment makes it too risky. Why they don't just get with a foreign woman escapes me.
Does the alpha cock carousel not exist? Actually, sometimes it's just an eclectic cock carousel, in which women fuck all kinds of different guys, as long as they have game. The cock carousel seems to come about because a lot of women either are disgusted with the whole institution of marriage (e.g. because they're one of these "free spirit" types who doesn't like to be tied down to any one man, but would rather travel the world fucking a succession of men who maybe in some cases provide temporary financial support, to the extent that welfare doesn't pay well enough) or think they need to put off marriage till later (e.g. because they're in college). Meanwhile, they still have sexual urges, so that's where the cock carousel comes in.
By the way, some alphas have respect for "greater betas" and view them as suitable partners for women, even if women will continue to crave alphas while settling for a beta. It's an observable fact that there are some men who get sex from a lot of different attractive women; this has always made the men who had more trouble attracting women (despite having advantages such as, say, good looks, money, and a not-totally-shitty personality) wonder, "What do those men have that I don't?" If it's not alpha-ness, then what is it? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I honestly can't read that shit without wanting to vomit. Stop viewing the world through a shit-colored lens for once in your life. I've never met a person who acts like any of your crappy red pill stereotypes. Even the biggest assholes I've known never had as terrible an opinion of women as you do. Whatever "alpha-ness" is, it certainly doesn't involve subscribing to red pill bullshit.
inb4 "ad hominem" or "you're thinking emotionally", if thinking rationally means thinking like you do, then I'll proudly call myself irrational. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 07:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Divorce rape[edit]

"comparing losing a bit of money to an actual sexual assault is a fucking terrible thing to do."

I don't think the main harm MRAs are worried about is monetary. They talk about money a lot because they're concerned that the financial security that welfare or spousal/child support payments will make it easier for her to leave. Normally, she might be in a worse position to find a good man to provide for her than when she got married, because now she's a single mom, and/or a little bit older and less attractive than before. The government-ordered wealth transfers help counterbalance that disadvantage.

I think it's actually the sense of betrayal from divorce that fucks men up in the head. It's kinda like with marital rape; RAINN is always saying that what makes it worse than rape by a stranger is that it's perpetrated by someone the victim trusted enough to have an intimate relationship with. In the next relationship, there may be a lot of trust issues because of this. Men who got dumped may worry about getting dumped again, and women who got raped may worry about getting raped again. Plus there's some blame (including self-blame); i.e. "You're such a dummy to open your heart to the kind of person who would treat you that way."

In both cases, the person viewed by the other as the betrayer may not see themselves that way. A woman who leaves the husband she promised to spend her life with and raise their kids together with may say, "There's nothing wrong with leaving someone when I decide the relationship should be over. I shouldn't be forced to stay just because I said some words at an altar." A guy who forces his wife to have sex may say, "If we're married, I have a right to take her whenever I want. I shouldn't be forced to choose between sexual frustration and divorce." Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but every time I've heard a redpiller or MRA talk about "divorce rape," they're talking money. (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
They probably don't want to sound weak by saying "I STILL MISS MY WIFE AND THINK ABOUT HER EVERY MORNING WHEN I WAKE UP ALONE IN MY BED!" They don't want to give women the satisfaction of knowing they can have that much power over men's emotions. But I think what these men are really angry at is the fact that she's off riding some other dude's cock after she promised to be his forever, or that the kids won't be able to grow up with both their parents, or whatever. Men can say, "Whatever, I don't need that slut anyway; I can find plenty of other chicks and have more kids" but what happened continues to haunt them, even though they deny it. (Women are often the same way; they'll pretend on social media that they're happy and that the end of the relationship doesn't affect them.)
Women, on the other hand, can get away with saying, "I still feel traumatized by the rape" without getting criticized as weak. For one thing, society recognizes that what happened to them was wrong (assuming people don't question her account of the rape), while society doesn't recognize is as wrong to divorce a husband and break up the family. Supposedly there's still some stigma, but these days it's so easy to blame the relationship's breakup on the man and be believed. Red Pillers are trying to encourage skepticism of a divorced woman's side of the story.
Anyway, the ongoing spousal/child support payments give divorced men an excuse to keep thinking and talking about the divorce. They can say, "I'm still paying child support!" rather than "I still miss her!" To be fair, though, writing out a check to her every month (or however often) probably does serve as a constant reminder of the breakup. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Chad and Stacy[edit]

Citations please? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't have a cite, but "Chad" is sighted in the wild - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


Great repository of absolutely shitty Manosphere terms. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Long Hair is beyond stupid. I think my eyes disconnected from their optic nerves and did a Tony Hawk 720 while reading Roosh's opinion. How are people who buy into this shit able to function in every-day society? Petey Plane (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
So what about guys with fabulous manes? Like myself, of course. Zero (talk - contributions) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Imageboard lingo[edit]

Should this glossary include general terms, like fag and normie? It's not limited to the manosphere. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeing how popular the manosphere is on some of the chans' boards, I'd say yes.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC) 19:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd say only if it's directly related to manosphere themes. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
an explanation of "Normalfag" was originally requested on this talk page, so i think "-fag" is fine. "Normie" is a little too broad i think, and not even that specific to MRAs/PUAs. Petey Plane (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I culled both -- this page should take care not to become a 4chan glossary. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, thanks. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


Okay, seriously, why the hell is the wiki trying to justify all NAW while condemning NAM. We should be pointing out that there are two groups of idiots, rather than trying to pick sides with one of them. (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for neutrality in RW is like trying to look for a desert in the British Isles. They have never claimed to be unbiased and proudly push their narrative. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Abbreviations[edit] αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your archaic cultures are authority driven[edit]

Your archaic cultures are authority driven. --User000name (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ephebophilia and pedophilia[edit]

Uh. Elsewhere on rationalwiki, the distinction is clearly and correctly acknowledged. The meanings of psychological terms don't change because a man-o-sphere bigot uses them.

From Wikipedia: "Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.[1][2]"

And pedophilia: Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1] A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years old, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]

So to simplify:

Normal sexuality: attraction to adults down to unspecified age, probably including 15-to-19-year-olds.

Ephebophilia: Primary attraction to adolescents aged 15-19.

Pedophilia: attraction to those under 13 when you're an adult, regardless of normal sexuality.

I'm not even gonna bother asking someone to fix this. If someone has a strong argument for why we should consider two separate and indeed basically incompatible sexual abnormalities to be the same, you pull it out of the edit history yourself.

That belongs in the pedosphere glossary. L's Ideology (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not even gonna bother asking someone to fix this.
And I'm not even gonna bother replying to you on this talk page. (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
You totally forgot to mention hebephilia, by the way. Oh, I see that the pedosphere glossary didn't take off the way I'd thought it would. L's Ideology (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems you got the wrong idea about this website. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I picture you saying that in this tone. And my emotional reaction upon hearing that is about the same as the Colonel's. Oh well, I'll get over it eventually. L's Ideology (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

RE: CUCK[edit]

This video has gotten 11,200+ negative thumbs from butthurt manospherians. In other words; there's no way you fine people won't enjoy watching it. So please do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


Should it be a term? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

We've been thieved[edit]

Thom Avella. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Imitation is the best form of flattery.' (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


I've noticed that neckbeards and others in the manosphere often refer to women as "females" in a very dehumanizing way. This article also uses the term "females" a lot I've noticed. I'm not sure if this was meant to be done purposefully but I think it should either be changed (to avoid the cringe and dehumanizing nature that the word is used) or at least specified that it is being used satirically. (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Troll Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What are "roasties"?[edit]

I see "roasties" isn't mentioned in this glossary, but I saw it mentioned here. What are they? (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Best I can find is UrbanDictionary claiming it means "black women" due to some kind of comparison of their vaginas to roast beef, which is too baffling for me to accept. Nog Bogmire (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'm the same guy from above. The term came up again in the quotes featured in this article from We Hunted the Mammoth, so I asked in the comments what it was. I got a response saying "Refers to a woman who has labia that looks like ‘roast beef’. Yeah. 😛". So, uh, it looks like you were right. Or at least half right. And that's right enough to still be absurd. I'd add it to the list, but I've always been terrible at editing. (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
ALSO, I just decided to actually go and look up the Urban Dictionary definition for "roastie" myself (rather than roasties), and the most-upvoted definition is pure, unadulterated manosphere. (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Message to the manosphere alphas[edit]

If you listened to what the terms were actually saying you would realise how pathetic they make you sound - but that would require empathy - and #that is what the betas have and women want#.

You want only first dates, and quantity not quality - and that is all you will get.

Then, one day, you realise all your mates have settled down with women who accept them, the good, the bad, and 'we'll agree to differ/have the occasional day when we pursue our different interests' - and you have not and 'the lookers' reject you and your slightly careworn appearance for 'alphas their own age', while the handsome women your age want 'a settler' or 'a touch of the gigolo about him' - which you have never learnt to be.

You may rage against the dying of the light - but accept the incel future that is yours. (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Troll — you almost made me laugh with that incel line at the end. Vive Liberté! 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Dylan Thomas made me do it :) (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • How many times must we say
  • The alphas are up top
  • Though presently without (snarlword) 'a female'
  • And the blue pill betas are way behind
  • Though with a girlfriend always beside them
  • The answer my friend...
  • How many times must we say
  • These words in the glossary
  • Before others believe they are true
  • (Not a way of saying 'we (say we) don't care')
  • (Or hiding our fear of women)
  • The answer my friend...

With due apologies - and would some poetaster or better improve the doggerel. (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Gina tingles[edit]

Actual meaning - '(Total) dick alert.' (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


This page needs more accusations of racism. Every "critical thinker" knows that if you don't like the way someone thinks, they are first and foremost a racist. Also using the term "female" is racist. Everyone knows that!

Post-modern "rational" thinking is hilarious! Keep up the good work of discrediting yourselves and your flaky ideology - which is an obvious cult, devoid of critical thinking. (Acolytes are too afraid to criticize it lest they become racists!)

This IrrationalWiki thing reminds me of Medieval Christianity. Get Medieval on all those 'racist' thought criminals! Burn them at the stake! Put them in concentration camps! Purge any and all dissident suspects!

(The road to hell is paved with evil intentions. I know this because I know history. God knows what passes for history these days. Universities have become indoctrination camps - that loot a person's lifelong finances. You people are certainly not earning any sympathy for getting taken advantage of so egregiously. It's like they turn you into strident crusaders the people will hate to justify having robbed you. They call it "free-market capitalism." Now isn't that ironic!) — Unsigned, by: Countzero / talk / contribs 19:20, 21 November 2017‎

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually the word you were looking for in your knee-jerk rant is "Sexist" not "racist" --GrammarCommie (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


The point at which the soi-disant alpha realises he has shifted from 'what does he see in her' to 'what does she see in him.' Women on the carousel no longer look at him with eager anticipation but see him as (the male version of) 'mutton dressed as lamb': and he does not have the resources to be a sugar daddy.

He has #not# hit The Wall; he can be a male cougar and have any trophy-lover he wants... #he is not an incel#... divorcees are too old... he has high standards but only meets women with impossible goals that make alphas betas... he is an alpha not an omega... why is he not included in the friend zone... Anna Livia (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

An alpha in their mind's eye[edit]

... but can they do practical things such as cleaning their hairbrushes and following the map reader's instructions? Anna Livia (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Are incels sexual communists?[edit]

To ensure a woman at every loser, in a totalitarian system, to intervene on the free market of seduction to suppress natural selection and hypergamy (class struggle) = communism

Should we call "incels" communists? GGCAP (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

'To each according to their needs' - and all (sexual) power to the (incel) soviet - and these words don't seem to apply. Anna Livia (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Livia I think the idea that Incels are communist is only viable if one subscribes to the (moronic) idea of a "sexual marketplace", which means one would have to have drunk some very deep Manosphere koolaid. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how exactly the Manosphere uses terms like "sexual marketplace". But I'm very much reminded of Erich Fromm's "To Have or to Be?", where he criticizes how materialistic our society has become.
In one section, he described how modern mating has become similar to a market place (I don't remember the exact terms he used and I only read a translated version.) and "having" an attractive partner (i.e. high "market value") became more important than "being" with someone.
While I disapprove of that as well, considering this deeply materialistic mentality might help in our understanding of their worldview. (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If a statement is contradicted by a familiar relevant rent-a-quote (the incels do not get what they think they need) then the statement is inherently false.
GGCAP - can you clarify 'To ensure a woman at every loser'? Anna Livia (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So you still haven't added "muh soggy knee(s) onto the page?[edit]

You damn sjws people must be lazy! K0rnsbl0dLet the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!" 21:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to [7]? (Drink, if you wish) Anna Livia (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Well at least I didn't go into a rage again and added fart rape. Whoops, disregard that. Give me a drink of the blood of homo sapiens if available K0rnsbl0dLet the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!" 20:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Where is the link to the RW drinking game (which is what I was referring to)? Anna Livia (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Being Fun:Drinking Game. Anna Livia (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

the wall[edit]

in all seriousness though, menopause is the wall (of no more children for you, unless someone found a way to cure it) and the prelude to it with fertility going down... anyways the definition for it is a bit too poe/satrical for my taste (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The antithesis of the Manosphere[edit]

John Lennon's [8]. Anna Livia (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Manospeak unbound![edit]

I see the Manosphere has developed a very refined lexicon since I last perused these pages. Black pills, 50 Shades of Cels, a dozen or so "isms" and on and on it goes. Manospherism is developing into quite the growth oriented ideology. Still, I can't imagine the mindset of a dude who immerses himself in this stuff, seeking it out and following blogs dedicated to Manosphere subcultures and essentially making it part of his identity. I have never actually met a dedicated Manosphere person in the real world. Maybe because the whole thing is permeated with an utterly depressing bleakness and steeped in silent male shame, misogynistic vindictiveness and outward directed self-hatred. At least the "PUA" stuff before it had a name and transformed itself into a woman-hating cult in the mid-2000s or so offered some practical advice for shy or socially awkward young men that didn't require buying into a toxic ideology. There are kernels of truth in some of the original PUA talking points that any aware man who has spent time with women recognizes. And even the most "incelled" recluse probably knows what '50 Shades of Grey' is about and that it was a huge hit with women. It is not a secret that it has spawned a cottage industry of porny romance novels that feature sexually dominant men sexually dominating sexually submissive females. The problem is we don't as a society know how to talk about sex or even what to make of it. At its core sex is not nice, it is not fair and it is not egalitarian. As Esther Perel said "Sexual desire and good citizenship don't play by the same rules." A society that is sex phobic and associates sex with secrecy and shame, but is at the same time saturated with pornography and sexual imagery innuendo is bound to be, well, fucked up when it comes to sexual relationships. Why I did I write this here? Because this isn't Wikipedia that's why. Just kidding. Sort of. SpookMaster (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

are we just making this bollocks up?[edit]

or are we just being trolled? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


I think it should be emphasized that incels were originally an online support group for involuntary celibate people, male or female, and was not founded as a misogynistic MRA movement (although I imagine they were present even in the early days). I mean being incel is not a pleasant place to be for anyone, I don't like the idea that non-misogynistic people who identify as such who have already suffered bullying and shaming be lumped in with the creeps and assholes. (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done, see incel Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You write "I don't like the idea that non-misogynistic people who identify as such who have already suffered bullying and shaming be lumped in with the creeps and assholes." Hmmm...why do people have to "identify" with everything these days. I've been diagnosed with BPD and ADHD but does that mean I have to make these things part of my core identity? The media and entertainment industry often portrays people with mental illness as deranged murderers but I am not a deranged murderer so I don't get too deeply offended by it. On bad days when the world seems bleak and hopeless it is the way these conditions interfere with my life and well-being that bothers me most, not the prejudices or misconceptions of "society" or people I don't know. Should I get deeply upset when someone casually uses the words "crazy" or "insane" and lecture them pitifully about how those words offend my identity? Why would I even want to identify with the conditions that make my life difficult? That seems rather masochistic and a great way to make an undesirable situation even worse.

To be clear, I am not saying people should put up with bullying, discrimination or bigotry. The world is full of assholes who delight in casual cruelty and bigotry of all kinds and nobody should put up with that shit. But it is worth cultivating a thicker skin and a resilient sense of self that doesn't take every slight or provocation deadly seriously. Bullies, bigots and assholes will always be with us and if you don't have a strategy for dealing with them that doesn't involve telling them how unfair and mean they are being (showing weakness only fuels their aggression), well, life will be very hard indeed. Choose your battles wisely.SpookMaster (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The main article "incel" does a good idea of exploring these issues and explaining the complexities. It's important to differentiate between people who're unable to or find it especially difficult to form romantic relationships (who may require counselling, support, therapy, etc), people who can't have sex for biological/medical reasons, and people who've simply not had sex but want to (maybe they're in jail, or can't afford a prostitute, or can't find anyone they want to do it with, or are assholes, or are in the category of people unable to form romantic relationships). The right to voluntarily associate with other people is a human right, as is the vaguely-defined right to family life (which also must be voluntary and respect other human rights), but the right to have sex with other people isn't a basic right. Nobody should be bullied, but if someone feels they are entitled to sex they deserve to have it gently explained to them that they're entitled to have sex with themselves but not other people. --Annanoon (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Which idiot wrote the definition for divorce rape?[edit]

He or she wrote, "comparing losing a bit of money to an actual sexual assault is a fucking terrible thing to do." Any evidence that all or most men only lose "a bit" of money after divorce? Their incomes may increase after divorce, but that doesn't mean the amount of money they lose *during* divorce is little. Never mind that "a bit" is a subjective term.

Also, "divorce rape" not only refers to loss of money but also to loss of assets and time spent with one's offspring.

And finally, the study used (reference 41) only claimed that men in *childless* marriages have increased income after divorce.

EDITED. I hope most of my fellow "rational" minds aren't this stupid. Tyrone8934 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tyrone8934 As do I, giving that your post consists of you obsessing over wording rather than discussing the meat of the matter. Or, to put it another way, "divorce rape" is wrong in the same way that falling afoul of godwin's law is wrong, in that it marginalizes and trivializes actual suffering and at its "worst" (for the "victims") is an example of First world problems. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie You can't be this lacking in common sense. Perhaps you'd be better off working in one Stalin's gulags rather than be here at Rational Wiki. Words fucking matter because they describe real-world events. Furthermore, I daresay that most people would *not* take rape less seriously just because the word is used as slang. Tyrone8934 (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tyrone8934 Hmm... Interesting point. I'm going to go rape my dinner now, and I'll rape you later. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Tyrone8934, stop insulting us. First warning. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The other 'Alpha/Beta/Omega'[edit]

How does the manosphere usage compare with the fanfiction version? Anna Livia (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


In the current (9 February 2020) issue of The Sunday Times' magazine there is an article on Tradwives and there are 'quite a few' other articles and books etc on a websearch 'of the usual varying degrees of validity.' Anyone care to write the article/subsection (I am otherwise busy in the wikiverse at present.) Anna Livia (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


True 'femoids' are the robot-Maria from Metropolis and similar. Anna Livia (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We already have an alt-right glossary entry for this, maybe just redirect there? - Linneris (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Anna Livia I think the term you're looking for is gynoid.Wikipedia Maria in Metropolis is historically referred to as the Maschinenmensch.Wikipedia Metropolis is one of the greatest films ever! —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Whatever the 'correct' term, those requiring a term for 'female android' are likely to create 'femoid' as a nonce term - und wir, das klein Deutsch haben, will 'Maschinenmensch' nicht weisen. Anna Livia (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""