AIBU to think the Manosphere reflects mainstream attitudes about women?

[JustHadEnoughOfItNow]

I've just watched the first 10 mins of this documentary. I've read a lot of comments on fb about it over the last few days including a lot of comments from men who are in the camp of the 'genuine good guys' who don't subscribe to it and are as shocked by it as the women commenting, which a lot of women have been reassured by.

Obviously, these men are at the more extreme end of the belief system but, it got me thinking that it's actually a trajectory a lot of men are on. I'd even say most.

I have a partner of 5 years. He is 50/50 on everything including the mental load (believe it or not). We have separate laundry baskets at his insistence because he doesn't want me doing his laundry. He's out at the supermarket at the moment and always does the weekly shop. We meal plan together and write the list together but he'll often be the one who's noticed we've run out of something and he really only consults me to see if there's anything I specifically want (for work lunches or personal items) etc. He does housework, holiday planning etc and I've never left him a list...

Yet, in a conversation about men chasing younger women, he still commented that "most men become more realistic about the sort of woman they can attract as they get older," which isn't the same as preferring someone of a similar age and life stage and finding them attractive. It's about being realistic about what they can get. Eg you might want someone else but you'll take what you can get.

I've dated men who have made a point of saying they "don't mind" a bit of extra weight on a woman but have suggested after a few dates that I'd look better if I dropped a bit of weight (I'm a size 10/12).

Endless threads on here about lazy men who see the household and childrearing as the woman's responsibility. He might not introduce his partner as "Dishwasher" (as someone in the documentary did) but it's certainly who she is to him.

When i read comments on here where women express concerns about a new partner and their mum body, other women will reassure them that he will just be so grateful to have a naked woman in front of him who is willing to have sex with him that he won't care what she looks like or, that men will have sex with sofas so you've got nothing to worry about. Which isn't the positive message I think those women think it is. It says nothing about her as a person only that men will fuck anything so he'll probably be content to fuck her too. I mean, yeah, he'd rather have someone he's attracted to but he is hardly likely to be an Adonis himself so will be grateful for what he can get.

The Manosphere might have taken these ideas to an extreme but it has only taken pretty mainstream ideas/beliefs to the extreme.

These men have not come up with something brand new and that's why it has gained so much traction. Because, on a really fundamental level, it makes sense to a lot of men even if they believe the manosphere takes it too far.

I think a big issue here is young boys growing up on social media absorbing all of this.

I agree with @bluerose3 the concern is young boys consuming this and believing it. I watched it last night and wasn't convinced they were all as misogynistic as they were pretending....vile humans yes...but actually it was all about being as shocking and controversial as possible to get the followers for the money.

What you describe there are dating preferences I think.

Looking at a lot of threads on MN there are many women who don't want to date short men, fat men, bald men etc.

But if they're having no luck, they may slightly change their preferences.

And its the women that prop these men up, like tikky twatty's mum

I think all men are the same - just some are better at hiding it

there's also one on iplayer men of the manosphere I think it's called which is even better <worse> than this one

That's really the crux of it.

You only have to scratch the surface to find it. I can think of loads of examples. The genuinely nice guy across the road who I've known all my life, who'd do anything for anyone but genuinely thinks and says that women can't drive or understand technology. My ex, a CEO of global bluechip companies, who everyone thinks is the 2nd coming, who refers to women as tarts and believes the divorce system is inherently sexist (because he's a cheating, lying, abusive scumbag living a double life and boo hoo, lost all "his" money in a divorce). Another ex who referred to women as, "stupid splits". I could go on and on.

My DH is very much like yours op. He pulls his weight and we have an even split of everything. And I don’t think what your partner said about being realistic is wrong. I am old now and realistically? Some young stud probably isn’t going to be interested in me. Fortunately, I’m not interested in them either, but you get what I mean.
The Manosphere documentary horrified me and yes, I think these views have always been present they are just exponentially more visible now…..

Maybe hiding is the wrong word - I think that even fundamentally good men are making active choices to override their instincts? Oh I don't know what I'm trying to say really 😂

I think one of them (possibly HSTT) has gone on to say that this is true of him. He's jut saying whatever will make him the most money. It's a character.

But I'm not really questioning the extent to which these men believe what they are saying, more whether it reflects what most men think to one degree or another and whether that is why it is able to gain so much traction rather than being a completely out of left field WTF??

Honestly I think most people are more conservative, shallow and judgemental than it’s socially acceptable to share.

And I don’t think what your partner said about being realistic is wrong. I am old now and realistically? Some young stud probably isn’t going to be interested in me. Fortunately, I’m not interested in them either, but you get what I mean.

Thats the thing, I don't get what you mean, no.

That's not being realistic.

I'd love a little cottage in the country. Being realistic, I accept that my little terraced house in the suburbs is all I can afford and the little cottage in the country will have to remain an unattainable dream. That is being realistic. Desiring the unattainable but accepting the attainable.

It's about graciously accepting less because you don't have the means to secure more.

I rhink you're probably right.

Setting aside the male exploitation of women aspect (because it's been a problem since the dawn of time), I think the question of whether men "settle" for less attractive women than they would ideally like is a red herring. Women do this too.

I mean, I would be delighted if some gorgeous Adonis wanted me, but the reality is (although I'm perfectly fine to look at) that I have neither the level of attractiveness nor compensatory high status for that to be realistic. Most people pair up at their own level of both attractiveness and status.

The big advantage for men in this equation is that there are social constructs that give them more options for status than just attractiveness - being very funny, clever, rich or successful - that don't usually work in the same way for women. Men in general don't seem to value those things in women to the extent that they will compensate for attractiveness, whereas we all know that rich, old, ugly men can still pull.

I haven't seen the documentary (but plan to watch it). I think women's bodies are seen as commodities by everyone and have been for centuries and this is an expression of that. I also think we are starting to see ALL bodies as commodities and treating relationships as purchases - helped by dating app tech which necessarily focuses on personal qualities as selling points. It's basically dysfunction on top of dysfunction isn't it.

That we sort of forgot about these attitudes for a while means feminism did a good job and needs to keep doing that job.

I also don’t think it’s fair to say most that most men are like this - my father, grandfather, husband, father in law are nothing like this. In fact they are the complete opposite.

Outside of sport, there is an absence of role models for young boys and men and these “influencers” are filling that void. Particularly if these adolescent boys don’t have a positive role model in the home or immediate family. What we need to worry about is a generation of boys growing up with this being fed to them during an impressionable and important part of their lives, particularly when they are forming their own identity and place in the world. And let’s not forget the pornography they are also potentially consuming. Social media needs strict regulation (I’d say a ban but that’s a whole other story), schools need to prioritise addressing this in education and parents need to take responsibility in educating, informing and taking proactive measures in social media and smartphone use.

I agree completely.

I personally don't think most men carry these attitudes about women. I think there have always been cohorts of young men/boys who struggled to find their place in the world, but with these influencers they now have something to latch on to, in the absence of other role models.

I think it’s a reflection on shit parenting.
imagine your child spouting that shit all over SM and in real life and you not calling them out on it because you benefit from it!
The apple never falls far

Going back to the examples in your opening post @JustHadEnoughOfItNow , I don't think most of those things have come from the manosphere, they're just part of being male.

The thing is, we're animals, and the most important biological urge for an animal is to pass on it's genes. And for male humans, the best way to do that is to mate with a young female. They're more fertile, more likely to survive childbirth, more likely to be able to produce healthy offspring and raise them to adulthood. For females looking for a mate, it's slightly different. Given that humans are pregnant for so long, the most important characteristic in a mate is the ability to protect them. Youth can help with that, but status matters more in a tribal society. So youth is a much lesser influence for women when looking for a mate.

Now we've been animals for hundreds of millions of years, so those instincts are ingrained pretty deep. We've only been men and women for maybe the last 30000 of them, and civilised men and women for the last 3000 or so. Our lives have changed utterly and completely in that time, and the reasons we choose a mate have as well, but on an evolutionary timescale, it's a blip. It's been nowhere near enough time to change who we are on a base level.

Now I know all this is getting dangerously close to me sounding like Andrew Tate, and that's the point I'm getting at. At its base level, the manosphere is about those evolutionary instincts. It's about getting a younger woman, it's about being a "high status" male in order to attract those women.

And that's where Tate and his ilk are wrong, they think these instincts are something to aspire to, rather than something we should aspire to move on from.

I think what pushes a lot of men towards people like Tate, is that they're the only ones admitting something all men feel. I will likely get crucified for saying on here, or Reddit, or down the pub, that there is a part of me that will always be more attracted to a 20 year old than a 40 year old. But it's true, and it's true for almost every man on the planet. That doesn't mean I actually want to go out with someone 20 years younger than me though, because I'm more than my base impulses.

But because we don't talk about this, it means young men grow up thinking there's something wrong with them, and that's what makes the manosphere attractive to them.

I don’t think any of this is a new phenomenon. Go into any town centre on a Saturday night and there’ll be groups of these men who think they’re something special out drinking with their mates.

They’re immature men who’ve been dragged up without a father and who haven’t had a shred of discipline instilled into them. We all went to school with lads like this. It’s the evolution of the Geordie Shore culture of a few years ago.

I think the difference now is that social mobility and adulthood and independence is no longer achievable in the way it used to be and so they’re stuck in this delayed adolescence for longer. They all seem like teenagers.

I also think there’s a strange attitude to sex now with younger people. 16-24 year olds are having less sex than ever before and I think that’s affecting attitudes towards sex, which I think is now treated as something unattainable rather than something natural. Again, I think this is a symptom of people in their twenties being treated like overgrown teenagers.

But ultimately these gobshites are a minority.

Going back to the examples in your opening post @JustHadEnoughOfItNow , I don't think most of those things have come from the manosphere, they're just part of being male.

That was my whole point though.

That it's easy to look at these men and deride them for being so extreme but that the majority of men will hold views along this continuum, just not at the extreme end of it.

And I don't think it's as simple it's just part of being male. If different aspects were promoted as just part of being male (and ones that relied less on the objectification/exploitation pr whatever of women), we'd be saying those were just part of being male.

But I don't think that's true though, I don't think the majority of men do have these views, they have base impulses. The Tates of the world take those impulses and use them as a basis for their world view.

If there are two women in front of me, one 20, one 40, then I'm going to look at the 20 year old first. It's not a conscious choice, I don't think about it, it just happens. That doesn't mean that I actually want a relationship with a 20 year old. That's not going to make me happy. I'd have nothing in common with them, we'd be at completely different life stages, and quite frankly I'd be knackered every time we went out on a night out. I want someone my age, despite the impulse in the back of my brain telling me to go for the 20 year old.

It's like when I shake another man's hand. There's something in the back of my brain going "Squeeze. Hurt him, show him you're more powerful, stronger than him.". I don't do that, because I'm not a caveman, and because it's not actually advantageous to do that in today's society. The impulse is still there though.

The manosphere takes those impulses and tells young men that they should listen to them, that they should base their lives on them. The rest of the world tells them that those impulses are wrong, and disgusting, and that you're a freak for having them.

What fathers should be telling their sons is that yes, those impulses exist, but that they're not who you are. They're a relic of a history we've moved past. That you can acknowledge them and then ignore them.

I've been prompted to look into the red pill because of this and actually some of it is sensible and as far as removed from mainstream narratives as you can get.
For example, there is a mainstream view of "the one'. Well the red pill believes there is no one special person that exists, only lots of suitable people.
It also says that a man should focus on self-improvement in all aspects of his life.
Let's face it, divorces happen sometimes because a man has let himself go in some way. None of us want to be married to a slob that's let himself go who thinks he should be loved for who he is without effort.
And I'm sorry but unconditional love as expressed in romantic movies does not happen between men and women in romantic relationships.
So no I don't think that the red pill reflects mainstream views. Certainly not all of them.
Sure some of it is about disliking women, no doubt, but actually some of it is just sensible advice for men in order to have a good relationship with a woman.

I just don't think these "biological urge" arguments have much merit though. They are not proven or backed up with evidence like behavioural studies of animals are. They're just what we assume about humans based on what we know about animals, but other animals tend not to invent smartphones or medical treatments that save their fellow animals' lives, or have their kids at home for a quarter of their life course.

I think men are socialised to prefer younger women, not biologically programmed that way. Male humans don't tend to live in a way that supports this idea of the drive to procreate. They tend to live with one other human female or male and have a couple of kids or none. I think men like shagging because it feels nice more easily than it does for women. All this is supposition and in general of course, but it's as valid as the biological urge argument.