[Sumanguru]

(05-31-2014 07:57 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Also, it's intellectually dishonest to omit mention of Roissy.

I said don't use him as source material, and don't get him involved with the writing of this article. (At least, not with our effort to edit the article). I never said don't mention him in the article. There's probably too many black and Asian people on this forum for him to want to participate here anyway, lol.

[soup]

I wonder if a manosphere would exist if feminism didn't come around.

I'm sure guys would still chat about chicks online, but there probably wouldn't be a real need to talk about male specific issues.

[Quintus Curtius]

My own two cents on putting together a decent Wikipedia article, for what it's worth, would be these:

1. Fewer cooks in the kitchen are better. At the initial writing stage, the article needs to be the product of one pen, rather than a mishmash of contributions from a dozen pens. One or two should write, and others can comment or edit.

Too many theologians in the mix will result in endless bickering about who and what should be included. Pride is the enemy of precision. The Catholic Church's Council of Trent took nearly 20 years of meetings (1545-1563) before it could hammer out a coherent statement of Church doctrine in response to the Reformation. We don't want to go down the same road.

In contrast, when the founding fathers wanted to draft a "Declaration of Independence" from England, they cast the whole project in the lap of one man--Thomas Jefferson--because he was known to be a great writer who could pull it off.

2. I don't think a "Criticism" section is necessary or desirable. We already have too many critics, and there is no need to provide them with a watering hole. Including a section like this lends support to the idea that the manosphere is somehow dodgy or controversial.

3. Hit the major themes, the major sites, the major events, and move on. It is not possible to cover everything, and we should be striving for a digestible, coherent narrative. Remember that, no matter what the final product looks like, someone with a website or a book is going to feel slighted for not being mentioned or included. This is inevitable, and should not be taken personally.

4. Negative, derogatory, or controversial information should only be included where necessary to enhance a reader's understanding of the manosphere. Remember, these articles are designed for the consumption of people who know nothing about the topic.

5. Gratuitous inclusion of jargon, in-house controversies, spats, beefs, and other such club-house information should be avoided. Remember the audience. We don't want to clutter the article with useless minutiae, which only detracts from the message.

6. Citations, citations, citations. If you can't back it up, don't say it.

7. Be very clear about what terms mean what. For example, Tuthmosis made the very good suggestion that "commercial pickup artists" need to be very clearly distinguished from average guys like us who just want to improve ourselves.

8. The article should be the product of one or two hands. This will promote unity of writing style, coherence, and clarity. Others can then revise, comment, or offer helpful suggestions.

9. There should be in place a periodic review of the article every 6 months or so, to make sure it stays current with the changing tides.


Q

[Zengling]

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

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

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

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

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

I remember someone on this forum have stated that "Manosphere" doesn't sound too "hetero" and my thoughts kind of mirrors it. Its the "mano" part of the term that I have a hard time reconciling with. I've told many people that they should go google up "manosphere" to get a general idea about the community. I would say that over 70% of them have commented on the "weird nature" of the name. One of them even said, and I quote "Wow this sounds pretty gay to honest."

Its just seem easier and more "legit" to name ourselves a more "standard" name. I wouldn't mind "Masculinsphere" at all.

(05-31-2014 06:45 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then why not have something like the "Anti-feminism" movement? That would be more clear and straight to the message.

Also regarding Roissy, you guys misunderstood me or that I wasn't specific enough. Roissy obviously have an ability to find articles, news, and studies to scientifically justify the biological difference between the the gender interaction, this could validate our concepts even more. I'm not saying that we have to credit him (or even have him write at all) for a lot of materials but it would be extremely beneficial for him to provide/search credible sources and the writers here can take a stab at it to fit into the Wikipedia format.

All-in-all, I want this "niche" of ours to be fully "legitimized" with proper structures, logic, studies, research, and examples to make our observations and finding as bulletproof as possible in the face of adversity.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-31-2014 08:21 PM)Zengling Wrote:  

I remember someone on this forum have stated that "Manosphere" doesn't sound too "hetero" and my thoughts kind of mirrors it. Its the "mano" part of the term that I have a hard time reconciling with. I've told many people that they should go google up "manosphere" to get a general idea about the community. I would say that over 70% of them have commented on the "weird nature" of the name. One of them even said, and I quote "Wow this sounds pretty gay to honest."

Its just seem easier and more "legit" to name ourselves a more "standard" name. I wouldn't mind "Masculinsphere" at all.

[Quintus Curtius]

@Zengling ^

I completely disagree with your comments and suggestions.

1. For better or for worse, the word manosphere is the word that has achieved general currency. To insist on a "better" neologism at this point would be pure pedantry. When a term has achieved general acceptance into a linguistic community, it should be used unless clearly erroneous. Deal with it. You sound like the guy who refuses to use the word "Koran", pedantically insisting instead on using "Qur'an".

2. I don't know Roissy, but I don't get the sense that he's much of a team player. He does his own thing, and that's fine.

[AnonymousBosch]

(05-31-2014 08:21 PM)Zengling Wrote:  

I remember someone on this forum have stated that "Manosphere" doesn't sound too "hetero" and my thoughts kind of mirrors it. Its the "mano" part of the term that I have a hard time reconciling with. I've told many people that they should go google up "manosphere" to get a general idea about the community. I would say that over 70% of them have commented on the "weird nature" of the name. One of them even said, and I quote "Wow this sounds pretty gay to honest."

If the prefix 'man' sounds 'pretty gay', then why do feminists call it 'mansplaining' whenever they can't win an argument against a straight guy?

[TonySandos]

I'm still behind the idea of an section near the top of the article for covering inspirations that lead to a manosphere creation. I don't know much at all about the history of this community to be honest, I'm sorry.

Should a thread be started or raised from the dead that covers founding, inspirational literature and other media?

[coginnav]

(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?

I think it's been edited to a more neutral format...

[The Beast1]

Roissy cannot be cited and included on the wikipedia article. Period.

For him to be an acceptable source, he needs to admit his name and stop writing under a pseudonym. Until this happens, nothing can be cited from him.

Reminder: All cited material must be from people whose full names are mentioned or are published with a pen name . Roosh, Matt Forney, Ian Irowood, etc.

[Trim]

Honestly, it's a battle you can't win. Let them put what they want, because unless you have some influence over the site, you're just going to have your edits deleted anyway. If the manosphere isn't what they claim, the manosphere should show it isn't through it's actions. The truth will come out in the end, good or bad.

[Skye]

Quote:

Some of these forums have been described in the media, the Waffen SS and by the Southern Poverty Law Center

Am I missing something?

[Samseau]

(06-02-2014 12:16 PM)Skye Wrote:  

Quote:

Some of these forums have been described in the media, the Waffen SS and by the Southern Poverty Law Center

Am I missing something?

The Waffen-SS was a multi-ethnic military branch of the Nazi's, so they must be comparing the multi-ethic, multi-racial RVF to the Waffen-SS. That's very insulting and honestly grounds for a libel lawsuit.

[Skye]

I understand the Waffen-SS, it was in reply to a separate post that was deleted saying that it was more neutral than before. I had thought we would be the only people consistently editing the article. Honestly I was wrong and as Roosh and Tuth (I believe) have pointed out before there is obviously keyboard jockeys that lurk this forum.

[Dagonet]

Can't Roissy's importance be mentioned as part of a citation from an acceptable source? This does seem pretty crucial to me. You can't deny the Manosphere sprung up around him and Roosh, essentially. If you're detailing the history/formation, this is a lynchpin.

[Basil Ransom]

"Roissy cannot be cited and included on the wikipedia article. Period."

Banksy has a Wikipedia page... But for Roissy's sake, it may be best not to press the issue in any case.

[The Beast1]

(06-02-2014 02:21 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

"Roissy cannot be cited and included on the wikipedia article. Period."

Banksy has a Wikipedia page... But for Roissy's sake, it may be best not to press the issue in any case.

Banksy has real sources at the bottom of the page from notable individuals.

Roissy can be mentioned if a named author from a legit source (eg Roosh on RoK or Joe Johnson of the NYT) cites him.

[heavy]

I concur with others. Must mentions:
The Game (took pua to mainstream, revealed the nature of women)
Roissy (perhaps the best and most articulate writer out there)
Roosh (RVF, RoK, and disregard for feminists by releasing books called Bang, DayBang, Bang Columbia)

Honestly I've never read a ton of Roosh's blog, I've gotten much more out of his indirect influence with RVF and RoK. Bang and Dead Bat were pretty good too.

(And then Roosh striketh Heavy with thine ban hammer, and behold, thus it is written in the book of the chronicles of RooshVForum - 2 RofKings 16:20)

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 12:58 PM)Dagonet Wrote:  

Can't Roissy's importance be mentioned as part of a citation from an acceptable source? This does seem pretty crucial to me. You can't deny the Manosphere sprung up around him and Roosh, essentially. If you're detailing the history/formation, this is a lynchpin.

(06-02-2014 03:37 PM)heavy Wrote:  

Roissy (perhaps the best and most articulate writer out there)

Let's be careful not to overstate the importance of Roissy. I see him as a relatively short-lived and limited contributor to the Manosphere who became obsolete--by choice, it seems--several years ago. While he arguably deserves mention, and made important statements during his two or three years of relevance, he isn't a face on the Mount Rushmore of the Manosphere. The Manosphere certainly didn't "spring up around him."

Furthermore, there are risks to citing him (apart from whatever restrictions Wikipedia places) given his hard turn to bizarre racial and political territory in the last several years (e.g., his preoccupation with something he terms "racial cuckoldry").

Roissy, while once an astute commentator, has hurt the Manosphere as much or more than he's aided it--arming the opposition with some of its only potentially valid criticisms of movement.

[Basil Ransom]

"Banksy has real sources at the bottom of the page from notable individuals.

Roissy can be mentioned if a named author from a legit source (eg Roosh on RoK or Joe Johnson of the NYT) cites him."

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/new...ame?page=3

There are other media references.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 03:51 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Let's be careful not to overstate the importance of Roissy. I see him as a relatively short-lived and limited contributor to the Manosphere who became obsolete--by choice, it seems--several years ago. While he arguably deserves mention, and made important statements during his two or three years of relevance, he isn't a face on the Mount Rushmore of the Manosphere. The Manosphere certainly didn't "spring up around him."

I'll briefly come out of lurk mode to address that.

Roissy is the Aristotle of the manosphere. His site is the bedrock of what people consider common knowledge and many neologisms can be traced directly back to him.

He started talking about the dark triad. "Spin, hamster, spin!" The rationalization hampster.

There are several more that I'm forgetting.

Tyler Cowen linked to Roissy back in 2008.

That was the first introduction many of us had to game:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalre...ty-li.html

In terms of the "manosphere," although I am distanced from it now, my writing goes back many years and was around when it sprang up.

Roissy and Roosh are the two original guys.

Then it's guys like Dalrock, Matt Forney, etc.

Everyone else is a tier down from there.

Without Roissy there is no manosphere.

It's great that there is young blood, but Roissy's influence simply cannot be overstated.

I would not exist if it weren't for Roissy.

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2011/0...ndent.html

In fact, his influence is so profound that like most innovators, he has been forgotten as his ideas seeped into the collective consciousness.

[MikeCF]

(05-31-2014 07:57 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

Correct. I'm watching young guys debate history when I lived it.

Tyler Cowen cites Roissy in 2008. Then the world changes.

"The Game" and all that was nonsense. Stupidity. Low brow crap and gimmicks.

Roissy was the true intellectual of the manosphere.

Roosh has evolved into a cultural commentator in his own right, but back in 2008 he as more "DC Bachelor" guy.

Roissy was laying down maxims and dropping philosophy.

Most of what is common knowledge goes directly back to Roissy.

Roissy had to dip out because of various online stalkers and the Cheateau is not Roissy.

I don't want to sound all full of myself, but I think I'm pretty qualified to say who is what to this movement - especially since my name and face have been out there. I linked to those guys under my real name for several years.

Roissy is up there with Aristotle and Nietzsche in terms of my philosophical influence.

No one before or since has been able to do what Roissy die for that 2-3 year period.

[vinman]

(06-02-2014 03:51 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 12:58 PM)Dagonet Wrote:  

Can't Roissy's importance be mentioned as part of a citation from an acceptable source? This does seem pretty crucial to me. You can't deny the Manosphere sprung up around him and Roosh, essentially. If you're detailing the history/formation, this is a lynchpin.

(06-02-2014 03:37 PM)heavy Wrote:  

Roissy (perhaps the best and most articulate writer out there)

Let's be careful not to overstate the importance of Roissy. I see him as a relatively short-lived and limited contributor to the Manosphere who became obsolete--by choice, it seems--several years ago. While he arguably deserves mention, and made important statements during his two or three years of relevance, he isn't a face on the Mount Rushmore of the Manosphere. The Manosphere certainly didn't "spring up around him."

Furthermore, there are risks to citing him (apart from whatever restrictions Wikipedia places) given his hard turn to bizarre racial and political territory in the last several years (e.g., his preoccupation with something he terms "racial cuckoldry").

Roissy, while once an astute commentator, has hurt the Manosphere as much or more than he's aided it--arming the opposition with some of its only potentially valid criticisms of movement.

I have to go with Tuth on Roissy. I've got skin like concrete. I don't have an immediate butt hurt response to racial issues. I can look at these things dispassionately and come to my own conclusions. But after reading his articles, and then the comments sections I finally said enough of this stuff, and I never looked back.

[The Beast1]

We can include Roissy. However, one of you guys will have to write about him using your real name on RoK. No pseudonyms.


I cannot stress this enough.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 04:39 PM)vinman Wrote:  

I have to go with Tuth on Roissy. I've got skin like concrete. I don't have an immediate butt hurt response to racial issues. I can look at these things dispassionately and come to my own conclusions. But after reading his articles, and then the comments sections I finally said enough of this stuff, and I never looked back.

Where were you in 2008?

Do you have a blog that dates back several years?

Were you actively linking to and engaging in the making of the "manosphere" as it was happening?

You (and Tuth?) seem to not get that Roissy is not Chateau Heartiste.

We old timers remember when Roissy got stalked and outed and then went to Citizen Renegade and then to Chateau Heartiste.

That's history we saw with our own eyes.

You'll hear guys talk about pre-2009 Roissy, and that's for good reason. CH and Roissy are not one in the same.