Tag: life

Photo by Esteban López on Unsplash

For ages, offline, I’ve been writing and wanting to share some of my thoughts on what’s been bothering me about the manosphere. The latest version of my work contains a few segments, and this post is inspired by one of them.

I’ve noticed a curious trend in the critiques of James Gunn’s latest film, and rather than offering a long preamble, I think I’ll cut to the chase.

Looking into why people don’t like Gunn’s version of Superman brings up articles like this one. (And in my list of search results, I couldn’t help but notice a piece entitled, “They’re Literally Angry at Superman for Being Nice”–something that I might read, even though I’m pretty sure the writer and I are on the same page.)

Superman–as depicted in James Gunn’s latest film via David Corenswet–troubles many Big C Conservatives and their acolytes because he violates a core tenet of the manosphere. 

Specifically, this:

Physically fit, good looking men are NOT supposed to demonstrably (earnestly) care about, or be sensitive towards others. (Here, of course, “others” refers to those members of humanity who are vulnerable or likely to need their help–or, hell–are just people who may be different from them, and therefore have experienced life differently.) These men don’t need to practice kindness of any kind in order to get what they want out of life.

And if a man is white, that rule goes double for him, and six times on Saturdays.

But Claire–you say–what are you talking about? When has one of the Manosphere’s Leaders–herein, otherwise known as Podcast Bros–dared to utter such a thing out loud?

Well, it may not have been explicitly said, but time and again, such a guideline has been HEAVILY implied and encouraged.

Within the manosphere’s media, individuals and causes that require sensitivity, depth, and nuance are mocked. You could be talking about the environment, race or racism, equality…

(And by the way–the way some of the leaders of the Dudebro Dynasty used false rhetoric over time to slander the concept of DEI needs to be studied…) 

Time and again, ANY call for men to help or generally understand and accept various members of humanity is depicted as laughable and somehow beneath what “REAL” men ought to be interested in.

Men who demonstrate any sort of sensitivity to others–such as women–are called names like “cuck” and at least one other term that escapes me as I type.

Meanwhile, those who tell the truth about what the rest of humanity would appreciate in men are vilified and treated as The Enemy. 

Womanese

I remember a few weeks ago, I saw a video wherein a man noted certain qualities that he expected from a woman in a relationship. In return, the woman shared her hopes concerning a partner.

And what did the man say in response? He declared that she was speaking “womanese”–as in some sort of foreign, woman-specific language.

In return, I thought, “Pardon me, sir. But don’t you want to end up with a woman? Shouldn’t you care about how we think or what we genuinely desire?”

Within the manosphere, Dear Reader, I MUST ask: Where is this desperate need to make normal things sound repugnant coming from???

Never mind. I’m getting away from myself. 

One thing that I want to point out is that intentionally casting everyone that isn’t A Certain Type of Man or Person as The Enemy isn’t getting these men where they think it is.

And indeed, as I was saying–my main grievance at this time stems from the fact that within the manosphere, the most basic of human traits connected to kindness–an INTRINSIC and VERY popular human value–are lied about and portrayed as antithetical to what men should aspire to. 

If you don’t believe me, let’s consider how the manosphere regards the “s” word, aka something that’s–judging from their reactions–one of the most wretched of all things in this world:

Safety.

Everything is… AWFUL?

Let’s kick off this part of my discussion with a little comedy, shall we?

Take a minute and watch this.

I remember the first time I saw “The Official Woke List”. I thought that whoever came up with it deserved All of The Awards.

Seriously.

All great comedy contains grains of truth. And watching the podcast host receive Colin’s litany of “woke” offenders reminded me of some of the top Manosphere Leaders’ content. Over time I’ve noticed they’ve been heavily invested in warning their audiences about society’s supposed dangers. 

And did you notice what “Colin from Portsmouth” shouted at 0:47?

You can run it back if you want… 

Among all of the things that he listed as “woke” and detrimental to civilized society, he barked

“PLACES WHERE PEOPLE FEEL SAFE!!!”

Now, I’ve seen the way Podcast Bros discuss safety, and in particular, people’s desire for safe spaces. Watching them, you might believe that safety and safe spaces are something needed by people who are mewling, immature, or inferior. Meanwhile, within society, who tends to speak openly of needing a safe space?

Nearly anyone who isn’t a straight white male.

And in saying that, I can’t help but think about what I believe people are after when they (we) say they want a safe space–or just to feel safe. 

Which makes me ask the following:

If you’re a man who’s reading this, whether alone or around others, don’t you appreciate being in places where you are

• Genuinely listened to–especially during your most vulnerable moments
• Taken seriously
• Respected
• Comfortable, not made to worry or needlessly feel stressed
• Not at risk of being baselessly ridiculed or criticized
• Not at risk of being attacked–physically, verbally, or otherwise

I could go on. But don’t you (men) want to be able to experience this sort of social decency–for lack of a better term? 

Why, then, depict safety as some sort of monstrous enemy?

I don’t mean to lump all men into the same massive stereotype. But for the most part, I could argue that a large percentage of them don’t have to worry about being disrespected or feeling unsafe to the degree that other people do. 

Perhaps that’s why certain Podcast Bros have so successfully portrayed the concept of purposely seeking safety as ridiculous. Because so many of their audience members can’t fathom something that, as adults, they haven’t necessarily needed. Or at least had to consider to the extent that others do.

Nevertheless, I’ve been alarmed by the lack of maturity the manosphere has displayed regarding this subject. Just because you don’t need something, that doesn’t mean it isn’t important to someone else. Especially when that someone is more vulnerable than you are.

And yet…

By now, if you’re a heterosexual man and you’re reading this, and you still don’t understand why other people value safety, I’m going to offer you the following illustration. Take a moment, and ask yourself: What’s your relationship like with women?

I’m not even talking about long term relationships, or how frequently you date. Just think.

Do women find you attractive? Do they simply enjoy being around you? Do you appreciate their attention?

If you answered those last few questions with a “yes”, then know this: If women didn’t FEEL SAFE around you, then they (we) wouldn’t want you within a thousand miles of them. Period.

Understand: Contrary to what the Podcast Bros have been spewing, the word “safe” and its derivatives aren’t some funny, loopy buzzwords. And safety is not just a human right. It is a human value. Something that most human beings genuinely appreciate, on a molecular level.

Anecdotally speaking, I’ll tell you–a few days ago, I saw a social media post where someone asked women–apart from material factors such as money, what did they really want in a man? 

“Safety” and its cousins–words relating to kindness and sensitivity came up time and again. 

Meanwhile, for some reason, Podcast Bros seem dedicated to encouraging men to be the antithesis of what is needed for them to succeed in their interpersonal relationships–romantic and otherwise. 

Isn’t it Ironic?

Don’t you think?

While working on edits for another story, it hit me: The Men of the Manosphere provide their mostly (white) male fans with THE ULTIMATE Safe Space. 

Really. Think about it.

Their takes on humanity’s pressing issues fall on the ears of a large, attentive audience. Their views are supported and thus far haven’t been questioned in a way that inspires them to change course.

All the while, the information that the Podcast Bros share encourages men to remain culturally impotent. Through their programming, the public sees the hosts modeling behaviour and using language that encourages their audience to believe that it’s fun and badass to be ignorant of others’ basic needs.

And yet, in spite of their eagerness to support popular lies about their chosen topic(s), they have the gall to regard others with dismay and disdain.

Why?

Because, apparently, the mainstream doesn’t appreciate their “special” knowledge and how they conduct themselves.

But is that really what’s wrong?

Or, could it be that various individuals like me tend to avoid Podcast Bros and their True Believers because they’re committed to upholding ignorance?

In all seriousness, their loyalty to these men’s ideologies is downright frightening. In the end, I wonder what dividends these men’s blind fealty to the Dudebro Dynamos is yielding in their relationships, apart from frustration.

And on a personal level, is it any wonder that certain men end up like Colin from Portsmouth? He sounded so angry, and his portrayal would have been truly comedic if I wasn’t willing to bet everything that it was grounded in reality.

When you’re invested in thinking the worst of others for absolutely no good reason, just how good can you expect your mental health to be?

My Point? And Perhaps Superman’s

Human beings are powerful. Men, in particular, are powerful. This is absolutely NOT a bad thing in and of itself.

Yet so many men are wasting their abilities and energy, and tying themselves into knots by engaging in counter-productive habits such as insisting that the most normal and benign of human traits are their enemy. They end up judging their fellow human beings accordingly, and needlessly damaging their connections with others. 

Yet in reality, it’s their attachment to weaponized ignorance that is hurting not only humanity on a broad scale, but them as well.

The manosphere’s leaders seem to think it’s a shame that men aren’t loved or appreciated the way they used to be. (Not since the proverbial good old days, anyways.) And yet all the while, they leave out the fact that genuine love and appreciation are a result of reciprocal interaction.

From what I’ve observed, the manosphere teaches men from a selfish space–that they deserve God knows what (*gestures broadly*) merely for existing. Meanwhile in reality, it’s vital to remember a timeless truth: At the end of the day, people are loved for how they treat others.

And contrary to what contemporary society likes to trick too many of us into believing, attention is NOT love.

Or, put into superhero terms: Superman isn’t a sensation simply because he’s good looking and has powers. He is genuinely loved because he actually cares about and uses his powers to help others.

Meanwhile, the manosphere has their followers sulking over a lack of superhero treatment, while encouraging them to offer their fellow humans less than the bare minimum. 

I’m longing for the revolution: The days when the manosphere movement’s leaders and followers awaken and realize that ALL human beings deserve better–including them.