Tumgik
#manosphere
shamebats · 6 months
Text
Do you ever think about how a single misguided study on wolves in captivity has resulted in both the most widespread toxic pseudoscientific theory in the manosphere and what is arguably the weirdest genre of graphic kinky gay fanfiction and depending on who you are and what you've seen you'll hear the word Alpha and either think of the platonic ideal of a cis het man or one feral mediocre middle aged actor's dick knot impregnating another's slick-drenched hole. Isn't the internet a wondrous place.
17K notes · View notes
theinkedknight · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Hey fellas is it gay to be able to fucking see?
The manosphere is so wild. There's a hundred reasons why you aren't getting laid and none of them ever are YOU TREAT PEOPLE, INCLUDING YOURSELF, LIKE GARBAGE. No, you'll get "hoes" if you wear a fancy watch instead of glasses. Sure.
Never mind that the "hoes" are always models and sex workers paid to be there. No shame at all for them getting their bag, but these people don't actually attract anyone without money or manipulation
200 notes · View notes
blueplanettrash · 1 year
Text
*scurries out of hiding*
Okay, imagine this. Manosphere podcasts start talking about Bruce Wayne for some reason. He's the biggest alpha male they can think of; he's ripped, he's rich, he's constantly surrounded by hoards of women. He's their king, they can't get enough of him.
And then...
A week later a story comes out that he's dating Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent. What are they going to say? They can't say anything, backpedalling makes you look dumb.
Okay. Bye. 👋
617 notes · View notes
nordic-noire · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
'Having enemies simply means you've stood up for something.'
64 notes · View notes
firmflexing · 10 months
Text
Smack about Men's Rights.
Smack is a mini podcast in which I try to tackle topics with common sense and logical reasoning, without bad intentions or ulterior motives. If a take happens to align with any political, religious or other kind of ideology, that is purely coincidental. It will inevitably upset someone, but please hear me out and remain civil.
38 notes · View notes
ghettogotth · 8 months
Text
“high value man” “hypergamy” “simp” “alpha” “sigma” “high status man” “hypermasculine” “high value woman” “females” “masculinity crisis” “low body count” “accountability” “wife material” “virginity”
🗣️SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!
27 notes · View notes
sinister-synesthete · 8 months
Text
research: bot perception - look through the likes & guess who is a bot & do some # crunching
24 notes · View notes
Text
Did feminism unintentionally create married single moms??
Feminism isn't one thing. There are many flavors of feminism, some that completely contradict others on points. If your flavor of feminism doesn't promote what I'm charging "feminism" with, then I'm not talking about you, but what I'm about to describe is a rather prominent line of thought across many types of feminism.
Feminism may have painted itself into a corner with respect to family and childrearing.
Some of the strains around the second wave were not concerned or actively hostile toward these things. This was either, at best, because they were intended for a politically or earnestly Sapphic audience, or at worst, because they were reactionary and/or anti-natalist and misandrist. There was some controversy in the second wave as to whether a SAHM could even be a feminist, for example.
In my last post, I said the push for women to enter the workforce wasn't accompanied by a complementary movement to bring men into the home.
We go forward two waves to The Current Year, and while there are some feminists who view (voluntary, non-Blood-And-Soil, non-theocratic) tradwifery as a valid choice for women and not "taking women back 100 years", if we're being perfectly honest, I think a lot of feminists recoil at the idea of being a SAHM or view it as a choice for some-women-but-not-me. Secretly they have some contempt for those women. It's framed often as "It's valid and feminism is about choice but personally, I would be so bored. I don't want to waste my potential," (or similar statements) which unintentionally frames being a SAHM as something good for boring women without a lot of aspirations or things going for themselves, but not smart and interesting women with potential.
In the manosphere, I've seen being a SAHM framed as perfect for women because it's intellectually undemanding, and that women are low-intelligence and never mentally develop beyond adolescence, by nature, so they can do tedious tasks and spend all their time around children without wanting to blow their brains out like an Alpha Male would want to because he's too smart and has better, more important things to do.
Sometimes tradcons couch this a bit more gently, that "Why would women rather submit to their boss who doesn't care about them, but not submit to their husband who loves them?" It's still acknowledging that they view this as a one-way power dynamic where one person is important and the other person is not, and the full-time parent is the one that is the lesser. "Women wouldn't be so mentally ill and stressed if they just stayed home and had kids," which is still framing stay-at-home parenting as something for mentally fragile, neurotic people who can't cut it in the "real world".
The same logic is used by those men to shit on men who do chores and childcare in a significant capacity, or those who are or aspire to be SAHDs -- that those men are wasting their potential, lazy, weak, incompetent, pushovers bullied by their wives, etc.
(What an odd thing for them to say...)
Feminists generally perpetuate the same beliefs, albeit couched in different language.
If we're the type of woman to grrr at the idea of being a SAHM, we need to examine what part of that we're grrr-ing at.
Is it because it was de-facto compulsory in the past and we've adopted a sort of inter-generational trauma, so we say "Never again!" and are reflexively avoiding anything that looks like it could turn into a slippery slope?
Is it because we associate it with necessarily being shackled to a domineering and insensitive patriarchal figure who barely treats us like a real person?
Is it because we dislike the lame-ass, square, hokey-dokey, pastel-colored, squishy, cow-eyed - or maybe even cheugy - aesthetics of marriage and/or motherhood we inherited from the Victorians and see reinforced by Mormon and Evangelical influencers?
Is it because some of our childhoods were actually kind of fucked up and something adjacent to motherhood is severely triggering, or we're afraid of becoming our shitty parents?
Is it because we - be honest - think it's a lower-status position, a waste of talent of some form, suitable for someone inferior in some way, etc.?
I think the latter one - between traditionalist and redpill men, reactionary feminists, and antifeminist pick-me's - is how society views SAHMs at an aggregate level. Society doesn't give a lot of prestige for stay-at-home parents -- the less educated, less intelligent of the two parents, they gave up their job because it wasn't worth much in the first place, and if you talk to them, all they're going to talk about is their kids.
If humanity is to continue, people need to have kids, and someone needs to raise them. I think outsourcing this to corporations and the state is fucking inviting trouble, but literally who is going to raise the kids if neither parent wants to do it because everyone from the right to the left has shit on the concept of childrearing for 70 years or more?
I think that was the problem from the beginning of the women's liberation movement. It's created a situation where men entering the home without being seen as lesser is the logical response to women entering the workforce without being seen as lesser, but it's turned into a very hard sell because it comes off as "Come do this thing we don't want to do because it fucking sucks and it's for dumb people."
7 notes · View notes
scarlett-foxxx · 2 months
Text
i feel like more people (especially on 18+ tumblr) need to watch this.. like now. ‼️‼️‼️
youtube
7 notes · View notes
sanyu-thewitch05 · 2 years
Text
Huge rant:
I am beyond pissed. Everyone is talking about Andrew Tate on social media and what his rhetoric has done to children. But y’all never called out anyone like Kevin Samuels or the Fresh and Fit podcast. Oh wait, that’s because they were talking about black women and girls. Y’all let black women and girls get humiliated for entertainment for years(not talking about the idiots that willing went on their platforms for “advice”)! But, the minute white people started getting affected from this bs, they started speaking out and taking action by getting Andrew Tate’s social media removed. But we’ve been telling y’all the harm this rhetoric has done, but it fell on deaf ears until the whites got a taste of it.
I’m so sick of the misogynoir.
@thisismisogynoir
173 notes · View notes
Note
I just overheard some 6th grade boys talking and joking about r@ping kids. These boys are like 11. It’s disgusting.
I blame Sneako, Andrew Tate, and the entire existence of manosphere content for the rampant misogyny and continued reinforcement of rape culture. I have made many videos on this topic, and this one specifically is about the impact this and will continue to have on many young boys. My video is almost 4 mins long, but I talk about some articles to give insight and examples. It's just heartbreaking and frustrating to see this happening, and I fear without sustainable interventions and education this will cause even more issues.
29 notes · View notes
meanevilandcruel · 7 months
Text
Point and laugh everyone
Tumblr media Tumblr media
😂😂😂😭😭😭💀💀💀 I though real men aren’t emotional? L BOZO
18 notes · View notes
blueplanettrash · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
I thought I should probably make a new post instead of just reblogging with it lol
337 notes · View notes
nordic-noire · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'
109 notes · View notes
alpaca-clouds · 4 months
Text
One of the most annoying myths about history
Tumblr media
There is one historical myths that manosphere guys, republican politicians and a certain subset of shippers love to call back on. "It was once totally normal for kids to marry!! And hence it is totally not creepy for adult men to leer after 14 year old girls and to romanticize the relationship between a 13yo and a 31yo character."
Now, obligatory disclaimer: Yeah, you totally can ship whatever you want. But stop attacking people who - at times due to their own fucking trauma - just talk about how one ship creeps them out. Jesus.
But let's get back to the myth. It basically goes like that: In historical times (historical time of one's choosing, really) it was the norm that children or at least girls were married off in their early or at least later teens.
And that is just... wrong.
Mind you, yes, it happened. It definitely was not the norm. Most of the time it happened with children of nobility who were married for political alliances - but often enough did not even see their partners until a long while later (basically only when they were old enough to create off-spring on their own).
This myth tends to be linked to two other myths or rather misunderstandings:
People did not get older than 40 back then (so they had to marry early and start reproducing).
Families just wanted to get rid of their female children because they were useless if they did not reproduce.
To the first, well... This is a very typical misunderstanding. See, the average lifespan was much shorter - but here is the thing: Average. One of the main reasons it was so short on average was, that infants died at a much, much higher rate than they do today. Which was also the reason why people had so many children. Because many of those children would not reach adulthood. And mind you, this stayed true until fairly recently. Even out of my grandparents... My one grandmother was a child among nine siblings. And out of those kids only three reached adulthood.
The second part is very much based on this idea that medieval times especially had this big difference between men and women when it came to work. Which... is just wrong. Now, after the middle ages, yes, we got a lot more differenciation between men and women. But you have to understand that non-noble people in the middle ages could not really affort to... not have everyone in their household work. Men and women both went working the fields. Same went for girls and boys. Which also means hat for the parents there was actually no big difference between girls and boys in terms of usefulness.
Now, for people working in other fields this was less true. Certain jobs were indeed done by mostly men - or in some cases mostly women. And if a family had their entire life set out around one of those jobs, yes, having a girl was... less useful.
Of course, one thing that is true is, that for the most part the idea of a love marriage was something unheard off for most of human history. In fact the idea of romantic love was not wide-spread in the middle ags. But people also knew that... there were practical reasons why girls too young should not be married and should not get pregnant. Because, well, they were more likely to die during birth. And contrary to popular believe... yeah, actually people cared about the mothers' survival. Because, well... infants died at a high rate. But you could fairly easy get new infants. Getting a new girl into a fertile age was much more of a time investment. And yeah, contrary to what Game of Thrones might have told you, there is actually quite a lot of historical evidence on husbands again and again choosing the life of their wives over the life of a child, when there were complications during childbirth.
Now, outside of the historical record in fact showing that we do know that psychologically... a teenager just cannot have a healthy relationship with an adult. Even if the adult has no ill-intent. For the simple reason that the brain of a teenager is not fully developed. Teenagers hate to hear this, but... well, technically speaking they are still children. While an adult has a fully developed brain. And of course there is just that there is a lot of power-difference between someone working a job and a highschool student.
So... yeah. No. There is no good excuse for it. And no, it is also not historical.
16 notes · View notes
shoujoboy-restart · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
A lot of men only care about the idea of misandry and the concept of men suffering solely for being men when it means or results in separation or disconnecting from women as their exploits, men are okay with being dehumanized as inconsequential beasts being put on a short leash to be exploited by society, because the reward for being a beast is the destruction you been taught to cause is viewed as cost-benefit, like dogs in underground fights, so what if it can't be cuddled, or it yearns for something it never had, or worse, it at some point had and slowly was taken way or was violently taken way from warmth.
being a blood thirsty creature unable to view it's own kind as such whenever you(the institutions and elites) ask it to, is profitable, have the man stay a creature, so let it be.
You aren't mad radfems view you as a monster, you are mad they don't seek to exploit you even thought they do, in fact, you know most women have been taught by other men to view men as monstera, you are mad that they don't care to have the cake and eat it too, that they don't need your bite in exchange for profit to world gives you for being a beast.
62 notes · View notes