I’ve previously divided the manosphere into two groups and predicted a schism that I’m happy to declare has yet to occur. I hope I continue to be wrong on that count indefinitely.
But there’s another taxonomy of sorts that depends less on our sense of morality and more on the tactics we adopt in response to the broken world around us. With very few exceptions virtually all of us think we’re headed straight to hell in the proverbial handbasket. From PUA’s to those who detest Game, MGTOW’s to traditional marriage advocates, we know that the sexual marketplace is horribly distorted and that society can’t recover until that changes (not to mention our national debt, vulnerable infrastructure, the totalitarian instincts of much of our government, etc.). The categories below group us according to what we think we should do in response.
Unlike my previous categorizations, these are more fluid. It’s perfectly consistent to advocate one approach in one area and another in others. Even the stronger advocates of one approach tend to respectfully disagree with those who advocate the others, or at least sympathize to some degree.
Merely agreeing on how and why we’re so messed up provides us with a lot of common ground.
In this post I’m merely describing the current manosphere as I see it. My take on each of these approaches in terms of which is most likely to work and/or most moral will follow shortly.
The first of these approaches is to exploit it. Exploiters are primarily the PUA’s, those who might prefer that women adopt a more traditional sexuality but who figure that’s not going to happen so they might as well get while the getting’s good. There may be other ways in which manosphere writers advocate taking advantage of our uniquely distraught society, but I’m unaware of who or how.
The second is to avoid it. Avoiders are the MGTOW’s, the men who focus on being as self-sufficient as possible, who refuse to get married or have children for fear of either supporting a corrupt system or getting burned by it.
And the third is to fight it. Most of us are fighters in one way or another, for even writing a blog indicates at least some desire to try to change something about what’s going on, even if it’s to turn a few niceguys into Alphas. Rare is the blogger who’s completely given up on making some sort of difference.
But there are those who’ve adopted fighting as their primary raison d’être. These include MRA’s and most of the Christian manosphere. MRA’s focus on legal and policy issues like reforming child support, whereas Christians focus more on facilitating a moral transformation. There’s some concrete disagreement between the two; some see Men’s Rights Activism as being too similar to “feminism for men”, and not all fighters support Christian values. Nevertheless, the differences between the fighter factions are primarily one of emphasis. In no way do Christian manosphere bloggers oppose automatically awarding children to the mother after a divorce, nor do MRA’s think that women should jerikson their husbands. Nevertheless, secular fighters typically emphasize legal reform, whereas religious fighters tend towards promoting societal moral reform.
Overall, the manosphere is largely pessimistic. The vast majority of exploiters and avoiders, as well as a hefty chunk of fighters, believe that there’s literally no way to turn things around in time to avoid utter catastrophe.
Among these pessimists, many concern themselves almost entirely with how to manage their own lives after we turn Mad Max. They’ve sought out beneficial locations and means of survival through which they think they’ll be able to better manage after an economic collapse. Stockpiling food, precious metals, ammunition, and other post-apocalyptic necessities are among their priorities.
Others among the pessimists are already making plans on how to resurrect civilization after its current incarnation dies. Although they may agree with specific policy proposals to forestall impending doom, neo-reactionaries largely eschew promoting policies within our current political paradigms or tweaks and fixes to our present government (at least those I’ve encountered, feel free to enlighten me if I’m somehow reading this wrong), instead favoring broad theoretical prescriptions for how we might best start from scratch after it all goes to hell. I’m sure that there are other who fall into the “how to best resurrect civilization from the stone age” camp, but neo-reactionaries strike me as the most predominant in this camp.
Yet some remain who actually think it’s possible to change things for the better, or even avoid becoming Somalia’s North American branch. Indeed, even the most optimistic among us know that the odds are most decidedly in favor of some sort of collapse. Nevertheless, some insist that every effort must be made to salvage what we’ve got, that with a little Help our efforts might actually accomplish something tangible, that maybe the elderly won’t have to fight autistic children to the death for leftover dog food.
Soon, I’ll examine each of these perspectives in more detail, putting forth my two cents on how I think we can most efficiently proceed.