The Manosphere is Alienating Many Men by Pushing Conservative Ideology
Before I start, allow me to point out that I am in strong basic support of the mass community for men’s rights and concerns emerging over the past decade that has become known as the Manosphere.
Its rise to prominence was an inevitable and understandable backlash to the virulently and openly misandrist attitude of the Woke mentality that took over so many of our social institutions during the past decade*.
*That is, until it received a major blow to its political and social hegemony with the way that the great majority of working class people voted during the 2024 election.
Nevertheless, all movements and communities, no matter how positive, have their degree of faults. And one of them regarding the Manosphere is the manner in which so many of its most prominent voices (online and elsewhere) push conservative politics and social values in the belief that the antidote to Extreme Left nonsense must necessarily be conservatism.
Hence, many within it heavily reinforce traditional expectations of behavior and hobbies attributed to men as part of Western culture — expectations that, like conservative socio-political leanings, not all men have an interest in following.
As a result, men on the Classical Left who have likewise opposed the Woke mentality feel alienated from the burgeoning men’s community, as if they are just as unwelcome or “unsuitable” for participation as the autocratic misandrists of the Extreme Left.
Hence, what follows are a few points that I respectfully ask many of those in the Manosphere who heavily promote conservative politics and traditional gender-based expectations to consider.
Capitalism is what got us into this mess in the first place. Hence, not all men can or should be expected to support it as somehow “beneficial” to us.
The constant praise of capitalism from conservatives in the Manosphere “loses” many men on the non-Woke Classical Left. It’s a known fact that the Woke mentality and the Extreme Left agenda as a whole were spearheaded and promoted by the most powerful capitalists in the world, including mega-corporations like BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, JP Morgan Chase, and Disney.
The Democrats who promoted that divisive agenda were all multi-billionaire capitalists in the pockets of donors from these mega-corporations.
The purpose of this agenda — something conservatives do not like to talk about — was to divide the working class against each other, so that the type of class consciousness shared by the capitalist class would never be mirrored by the working class.
Hence, it’s important to note that the Woke agenda came from the top down, not from the grassroots Left on the bottom of the economic totem pole.
Claims by some SJWs to be “anti-capitalism” are ridiculous considering all the capitalists registered as Democrats that they supported; and considering who was the source of Wokeness in the first place. Would Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, and his billionaire brethren have seriously attempted to compromise capitalism?
That being the case, those of us on the Classical Left are not going to support capitalism as some type of antidote to Wokeness. It’s actually the source of the problem.
Many men do not consider it masculine to glorify the military.
Let me make this clear from the start: many, if not most, of us on the Classical Left are not pacifists. We may only support violence as a last resort, but we are not against using violence when necessary, such as in self-defense of ourselves, of the weak, and of our community.
However, let’s be honest here: The military is fully under the control of the capitalist class via the government that it buys and controls through its lobbyists. Over the past century the Armed Forces have not been used primarily in defense of our country, but in defense of U.S. capitalist business interests. Hence, it has been used for conquest more than anything else.
It’s a big money laundering racket, and there is nothing cool or “masculine” about using physical force in this fashion. This is not the same thing as critiquing violence used for reasonable self-defense. And it’s not above praising the ability of men to wield it during incidental situations that may truly warrant it.
I should also point out that SJWs never had a problem with using violence for conquest or hurting people that they disliked. Being above that type of mentality is not tantamount to entirely divesting yourself of masculine self-defense capability.
Men on the Classical Left likewise do not consider a love for high stakes competition to be masculine.
This frequent statement that men love competition in general, and thus thrive in a system that operates on dog-eat-dog competition (e.g., capitalism) does not hold up to scrutiny.
This level of competition promotes a ruthless type of behavior that benefits sociopaths more than anyone else. It encourages the pettiness and nastiness of office politics, and has resulted in a system that produces numerous losers and countless people of both genders tossed to the wayside and into poverty.
Thusly, the “winners” are often not the people of the best character, but those willing to do anything it takes to get to the “top”. Or they are sometimes simply the luckiest among us, those who happened to be born into the right family, or simply be at the right place at the right time.
That’s not meritocracy, it’s plutocracy. It brings out the worst in us, not the best. It promotes the making of enemies and the thrashing of others. It enables non-meritorious hierarchies based on who your family is, and who you personally know.
It is the antitheses of cooperation, which truly allows a civilization to thrive; and to create a better world where you can become a winner without other people being losers. Where success is defined by those who earn the most respect by contributing to society in a way that benefits everyone, rather than those who acquire the most power over others and disproportionate levels of material wealth. Strutting like a peacock and having the greatest amount of power should not be considered masculine; if it is, then most men cannot fit the mold.
I want to work with my fellow men (and people in general), not against them.
Not all men can be expected to be entrepreneurs, and the majority will not be successful at it as per the rules of capitalism.
I say this as a struggling entrepreneur. I’ve always been greatly interested in entrepreneurship and pursued it almost since I first became an adult. Hence, I know that there is no foolproof set of steps that almost guarantee success in business and self-employment.
You will be facing massive competition, and most people do not succeed in such a ruthlessly cutthroat environment. Business practices are in many ways heavily unethical, whether they happen to be legal or not; hence, compromises with one’s personal set of ethics must frequently be considered.
Some in the men’s community have talked about creating weekend getaways for men to hang out and connect. Am I supposed to trust any group of people who favor high stake competition and are all about unseating others — including me — instead of the unity that such a community is supposed to be about? I see a contradiction here.
Not all men are going to like sports and cars. Please accept that!
Here we come to some of those traditional gender-based expectations that many in the Manosphere try to push.
One of these prominent voices who has talked about creating both online and in-person weekend getaways for men to get together and hang out for mutual camaraderie has suggested “sports nights,” where we all gather together to watch football, basketball, hockey, etc.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But what about the many of us, like me, who have no interest in sports? (In my case, I like the fighting sports, such as boxing and martial arts, but that’s it.) Would we be welcome or comfortable in that type of group activity?
Another online influencer in the men’s community uploaded a video where he mentioned several rules that men should expect women they were in a relationship with to understand and accept. I agreed with most of them, until he provided the following rule: Weekends for men are for sports, not for shopping et al.
Here we go again. So, in the Manosphere, you have to be into sports? You can’t like shopping instead? In my case, it’s no to the former and yes to the latter, and I say this as a guy who is heterosexual and in no way effeminate. I’m into the martial arts and quite tough, but I do not have any interest in football, baseball, or hockey. And I find shopping to be fun, not something I think only women could enjoy doing.
And then there is the insistence by some in the Manosphere that men must have the ability to fix cars, or at least change tires. Not all of us have this skill, or an interest in developing it.
So, are we supposed to be outcasts in the men’s community if we're not fans of sports or adept at car maintenance? Does a lack of interest or skills in these areas somehow compromise our inherent masculinity?
Not all men are suited to be leaders by proxy; and some women are.
Many men in the Manosphere keep insisting that a man is supposed to be the leader in a romantic relationship and to make all decisions within the household. And yes, I know women are attracted to men who are “dominant” in such ways.
But the fact remains that not all men make good leaders in general. Many men do; but in many cases, they should only be making decisions in matters where they have natural skill or experience. Some men suck at managing money; some are too hasty in their decision-making, sometimes due to being alcoholics, drug addicts, or mentally ill; some are terrible at child care; and many lack medical expertise.
In such instances, a woman who does have expertise or experience in these areas where a man is deficient should be the one to step in and take the lead. And this arrangement should be reversed where the man is the one with the skill and experience, of course.
Expecting men to always be the leader of any given situation simply because they are male is setting up potentially dangerous situations for all involved, and also putting a very heavy burden on men.
Nobody should be doing anything, or expected to do something, that they know they aren’t good at. Especially not because of what their gender happens to be (e.g., a man who is good & experienced in child care or cooking should take the lead over a woman who is not). And sometimes a good leader knows when to step aside and let someone better suited to a specific task take over.
This goes for decisions made both in the home and in the workplace.
A better world for everyone cannot be accomplished if men have autocratic power over women and girls.
Now, let’s get to the most absurd attitude I see promoted by many prominent voices in the Manosphere, one that is not challenged nearly enough. It goes like this:
You can judge the quality of a woman based on whether or not she has a good relationship with her father. And that her father should be fully in charge of whom she dates, and his judgment is always more sound than her own.
With all due respect to the men who promote this, but… seriously?
Let me address the enormous pachyderm in the room regarding this belief.
Men are human beings. Hence, despite the many good men out there, including the many who make great fathers, there are also more than enough men who are just plain assholes. Many are drug addicts or alcoholics; many are criminals or sociopaths; many are neglectful of their kids due to selfishness; and many are mentally ill.
And these men should be making authoritarian judgments over who their daughter dates or marries? Simply because their loins provide some genetic material to give life to these girls? And I should be wary of a woman who has a poor or non-existent relationship with her father without first finding out what type of man her father is?
I’ve known my share of women who had fathers with the above issues, and I would frankly find them insane if they had a good relationship with such a father, and followed his commands or took moral cues from him. Or accepted his judgments of me or any other guy. No girl or women, or anyone else, should be expected to place themselves under the control or value judgments of such a person, including a parent.
Also, not all men are wise just as not all women are wise. The mere fact that they may genuinely care about their daughter does not mean they will make decisions that are not selfish and more in his best interests than her own. Love has a dark side, and the desire to control those we love for our benefit rather than theirs is one manifestation of love’s negative side.
Finally, many in the Manosphere oppose the popular prejudice that older men should be expected to only date women of comparable age for a variety of reasons — everything from consideration of natural preferences (that are not a choice) to the fact that he still may want a partner capable of bearing children. I too oppose this all-too-common prejudice for those very reasons.
So, do men who promote the Autocratic, All-Knowing Father Model truly think that with age disparate relationships (within legal bounds) currently being such a popular prejudice and personal “ick”, that most fathers in this day and age would give permission for his 20-year-old daughter to date an older man? No matter how decent a man he was and no matter how much the man truly cared about his daughter?
No, he would prefer that she date an asshole who was her age rather than a good man who was much older. So, lots of luck with securing permission to date a younger partner if this model was enforced!
In all fairness, some have told me that the Manosphere voices promoting this belief do allow for degrees of flexibility within that framework, but I have personally never seen it addressed by the promoters.
Let us also consider how autocratic such a model is. Any group of people who are given that type of power invariably result in many such individuals abusing it. How often do we need to learn that lesson? History has taught us this too many times to count and we do not need to deny girls and women some of their agency to create a society where the genders behave better towards each other.
Such attitudes led to the rise of feminism in the first place, which in turn went overboard and led to third & fourth wave feminism — and helped spawn the Woke nightmare.
Men of the Classical Left are not going to agree with this, and it’s not because we support Wokeness. It’s because we do not want the post-Woke world to veer towards the opposite extreme and risk bringing us right back to where we have been for the past decade.
Conservative politics run the risk of doing that if they are not kept in check, much as liberalism needs to be kept in check.
Please stop equating the Left in general with Wokeness.
Let me make this clear as well. The Left is highly fragmented, and the Classic faction has always opposed Wokeness out of principle. And as I explained above, the Woke were never seriously anti-capitalism.
Yes, I understand that conservatives support capitalism and dislike Leftist economics, whether they be Keynesian or genuinely Marxist (as opposed to the Woke’s “Cultural Marxism”). They are entitled to that belief. However, conflating Classical Left economic policies — whether social democratic or Classical Marxist — with the Woke agenda is absolutely incorrect and needlessly alienates a large contingent of men from the Manosphere.
The Woke are not overly concerned with class. They are all about identity politics. While it’s true that Classic Left economic policies are not generally supported by conservatives, they are not misandrist or identitarian in any fashion, i.e., fixed to someone's immutable traits or personal religious choices. SJWs primarily hate or discriminate against certain people for having the latter traits and choices, not for their class status. They are very welcoming to capitalists who are female, PoC, LGBT, and Muslim.
Hence, those in the Manosphere who denounced the recent increase in the minimum wage for fast food workers in California as “Woke” were being ridiculous. Yes, this policy was Leftist, but such economic issues are of little to no interest to the Woke.
It is also incorrect that big companies or the government itself cannot afford social programs or these types of policies, and would “go broke” if they implemented them on a wide scale.
Regarding the government, the trillions sent upwards to the capitalist class for bail-outs (including the monumental one via the CARES Act during the COVID pandemic) and to fuel the war machine while the government remained as solvent as ever says otherwise.
And as for the corporations, the vast amounts of profit acquired by these corporations for paying their hard-working employees peanuts are used for things like stock buybacks, hedge funds, and investment in automation. If not for that they would still be taking in enough money to make a fortune for the owners while simultaneously paying their employees very good wages and benefits.
Conservatives are free to disagree with and debate such policies, but referring to them as “Woke” is simply incorrect, and quite frankly intellectually dishonest.
We need to consider all sides of the political issues and not impose traditional gender-based expectations on all men if we want the Manosphere to prosper as a united community. To do this, we need to allow all men who oppose the Woke virus to feel comfortable in men’s spaces created by this community.
Otherwise, we run the risk of breaking into separate camps and we will be weaker in this division than we would be if we accepted our differences and united on the basis of a few commonly shared principles: No misandry and full equality for everyone.
And you are correct that there is nothing meritorious about the dog-eat-dog, king-of-the-hill game that is plutocracy and capitalism. Rather, it's really quite meretricious at best. The only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling, lol.
And I certainly agree that the tradcons and reactionaries are really NO friend of most men either in practice.