Orbiting the Manosphere

I have been studying what is called “the manosphere” for several months. I intend to make a number of short posts about what I have learned from internet postings, personal experience, and so forth, but I wanted to set up a post to permit comments and conversation.

At a basic level, the manosphere is a response to the feminization of American culture. Men respond to the situation in different ways.

But there is (almost always) a strong subjective, intensely personal element. Men have been through messy divorces; or their wives or girlfriends “cheated” on them. Or they have experienced very poor parenting from a single mother. Many believe, with some justification, that they were intentionally lied to by parents, or church, or society, about “what women want” or how women really are.

To start things off briefly: You will find that you won’t go very far in exploring the manosphere before you run into the “red pill,” and the experiences of men who “have taken the red pill.” (Yes, as in ‘The Matrix). I have included a couple of links here which talk about the “red pill.”

–> http://youngmanredpill.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/why-the-manosphere-exists-in-one-post-for-beginners/

–> http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/p/masculexicon.html

Let’s read up on these, and talk.


39 comments on “Orbiting the Manosphere

  1. branchnvine says:

    After taking a flyover of the manospher it saddens me to see how the false equality of feminism has only widened the gap between men and women relationally. Hopefully men and women will rise to these challenges and develop healthy examples of what it means to be a man and woman respectively.

    • mustardnine says:

      @ branchnvine
      Yes, the first shock I had in reading the manosphere was the discovery that there really IS a huge difference between what we are told women are and what they like, versus what they really are and like. I’ll say more in my next comment.

  2. mustardnine says:

    One commenter on the manosphere that I really like calls himself “deti” He comments at many blogs but does not have one of his own. His comments are so well thought out, that someone has excerpted some of the best of them, and put them on a website called “deti nation”

    I am here posting something I found there, at

    Here it is

    Here are some false claims about women which the manosphere has utterly destroyed:

    1. Claim: Women are altruistic and good, always seeking the good of others.

    Truth: Women SOMETIMES are altruistic and good, and SOMETIMES seek the good of others. Women can and often do act ruthlessly in their own self interest.

    2. Claim: Women do not lie about sex.

    Truth: Women can and do lie about sex, their sexual histories and their pasts. A woman can and will lie about her past history and her partner count if she deems it to be to her advantage, or to avoid shame or guilt. It is often said that women are rarely honest about their partner counts and find creative ways to fudge their counts downward.

    A good way to get to the truth about a woman’s partner count is to use the following formula: Multiply her admitted partner count by 3. Another thing to consider is that most women include in their partner counts only sober P in V “relationship” sex. The true partner count is reflected in the number of men whose penises she has seen or touched, his penis penetrated any of her orifices, or she participated in any act ending in the vernacular “-job”. If she’s touched his d**k, she’s “had sex with” him, and it counts.

    3. Claim: Women want soft, kind, gentle sex and need to be treated with delicacy in the bedroom. Missionary position is the only appropriate position.

    Truth: Women like soft sex only sometimes. Most prefer vigorous sex and really get off on it. And most women really like the rear entry or “doggie style” position because it requires her trust and submission. Most also like woman on top because it lets her control most of the movement.

    4. Claim: Women want to be equals in the bedroom and they don’t like giving BJs.

    Truth: Women want a man to dominate them in the bedroom. Most are not into BDSM, but most women want to be told when it is time for sex, they want to be told what to do and how to do it. Most women like to give BJs if they are told to do it and how to do it.

    5. Claim: Women never cheat on boyfriends or husbands.

    Truth: Given the right circumstances, right man, right time, and low odds of detection, many women can and will cheat. And she cheats for different reasons than men do. Men who cheat do so for sexual variety. Most women who cheat do so because they have lost attraction for their BF or husband.

    6. Claim: If a wife cheats, it is because her husband is being unkind to her or has driven her to cheat.

    Truth: If a wife cheats it is because she has lost attraction for her husband. And she has probably lost attraction because he isn’t leading her and acting dominantly in the marriage.

    7. Claim: If a wife cheats, it is easy to restore the marriage.

    Truth: Wife cheating is nearly always fatal to a marriage. It is more than her losing attraction. Once a woman has lost attraction for a man it is nearly impossible for her to feel that attraction again. Both husband and wife know that once she has broken the marriage and sought sex from another man, she has fully, totally and completely rejected her husband. She has sent the message to her husband that another man is better able to satisfy her. Another man is better, stronger and more suitable. Her husband is not good enough and an unacceptable mate. It is nearly impossible for a marriage to recover from such utter and complete rejection.

    8. Claim: Women are always kind and caring to their husbands or boyfriends.

    Truth: Women are sometimes kind and caring. But, women have a capacity for verbal and emotional cruelty than men cannot even approach. Once a woman is no longer in love with a man, she moves on from him and forgets him as easily as if she had never known him.

    9. Claim: Christian women are different, more spiritual and less hypergamous than nonChristian women. Christian women are better suited to marriage and motherhood because of their spiritual discipline and training.

    Truth: In terms of attraction, mating and basic sexual behavior, Christian women are no different from their secular sisters. They’re Christian, but they’re still women. Hypergamy is far worse among Christian women because they are raised from young childhood as “daughters of the King” and taught to “never settle” for just any man. They are told from childhood that God is “preparing a man just for you” and he will be perfect because God is perfect and God makes no mistakes and God is not a man and does not lie. In marriage, many Christian women are fed scriptural support for their beliefs, requiring the man to love sacrificially and unconditionally, but he must earn her respect.

    10. Claim: Christian women are less prone to divorce than nonChristian women.

    Truth: This is only somewhat true. The US national divorce rate is around 50%. The divorce rate for all those claiming Christ is 38%.

    11. Claim: Christian women never have sex before marriage.

    Truth: Given the right man, right circumstances, right time and low risk of detection, many Christian women will be willing to have premarital sex. Certainly not all do, but many have.

    12. Claim: Women never act selfishly.

    Truth: Women are capable of acting in their own self interests as much as any man. A woman is fully capable of fraud, deceit, manipulation, cunning, lying, ruthless self-interest, obfuscation, rationalization, shading the truth, and more. if she believes it to be in her interest or to her advantage.

  3. mustardnine says:

    On the importance of a HOME to a MAN.

    From an incidental email from the Jeffrey Gitomer people, which led me to this link.


    In the context of SALES, Stephanie Melish says, briefly, with the EMPHASIS MINE IN CAPITALS:

    There’s No Place Like Home

    ” I have learned that home is a distinct word that can create special emotions for each person. I’ve also learned that you must create three home fronts in order to be your best.

    How to create your best three homes for success:

    – 1. Personal home . . . sanctuary . . . “WHOEVER INVENTED THE CONCEPT OF THE “MAN CAVE” WAS SPOT ON! I challenge you to create your own man cave room. Don’t argue with me and say, but I don’t have an extra room to make all for myself. Improvise! At minimum create your own “space” just for you. A spot where you can read, think, write, create, pray, and be with the best person in the world, you!”

    – 2. Work Home. . . . How are you TAKING OWNERSHIP of your work home like you do your personal home? Do you take the time to adorn your work space and your actual WORK with your personality and interests? Or do you simple check the tasks off your list without taking full home ownership?

    – 3. Internal Home. THE SPACE INSIDE YOUR BODY IS YOUR INTERNAL HOME, your mind, your conscious, your heart, and your spirit. This the most important to take care of, and usually the one that is most frequently ignored. . . . What’s your passion? What’s your interest? What are you doing about it? How’s your spiritual home?

    – 4. LIVING ROOM: In every home you have to TAKE THE TIME TO WORK ON THE LIVING ROOM. That’s the area where you actually make the room to live . . . When you combine the physical place with the people and the pleasure of experiencing life together, that’s when you are home.”

    Thus far, Stephanie. Now ME.

    This, by the way, provides a MISSING LINK TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE MANOSPHERE IS ANGRY ABOUT, and what they, the males, are looking for. Too many young females do not agree that making a home needs to be their high priority — and that their home is going to have a MAN IN CHARGE OF IT.

  4. mustardnine says:


    I urge you to read this very current post at Dalrock’s blog. Read down through ALL the comments


    To establish the context of this post and its comments, “the Kendrick brothers” refers to the men who made the very popular “Christian” (really the very popular “churchian”) movie “Fireproof.”
    Doc Future and I have had several very agreeable discussions about this detestable movie.

    If you (and wife) haven’t seen this movie — and I don’t recommend that you do — you can get adequate background about its theme, and its poisonous implications, at this earlier post by Dalrock, here:


    Read the post and all the comments there, too.

    Be prepared for a sudden shock. I hope that you will get back here on this comment thread. Blessings to you, dear brother.

  5. branchnvine says:

    None of what I’ve read is especially shocking with the exception of the realization that christian men are being taught to submit to their wives and put them first. By first I mean that it would seem that many “Christian” men only pay lip service to God being the final and only authority in their life when in fact they lay that burden on their wife willingly or not. Most of what I’ve read in this manosphere is reactionary. What this culture needs is men ready to be stood upright by their God and to live fearlessly in the face of all the enemy has brought to bare. To be head of the wife as Christ is head of the church is a tall order. Most women have such a negative spirit of rebellion well up within them that they refuse to be lead by any man including the son of man who is also the Son of God. This is the place I find my self in, but I also find my faith growing by necessity. I’m learning that I must become a person of great faith as described by Jesus and not a person of little faith. Little faith is what allows the enemy to rule with fear. This I believe is what keeps men from standing up and sanctifying their rebellious wives. I pray that in the days and years ahead that God will reveal to righteous men that they are not alone in this struggle, and that God has in fact spared a remnant of men who have not bent at the knees for anyone but Christ alone.

    • drfuture says:

      Wow – that’s a heavy comment. Well said, and lots to think about.

    • mustardnine says:

      @ branchnvine said:
      “Most of what I’ve read in this manosphere is reactionary.”

      True. But many, especially at Dalrock’s, are men who have been “frivorced” (frivolously divorced) by their “Christian” wives, who took the kids, took the house, took the money — and all the time these females got the “prayers and support” of their churches. These men have a right to feel bitter. They have been betrayed by their wives, their churches, and the family courts system. I know some of these cases myself.

    • anthropomorphicpersonnification says:

      The concept of submission or as (if I remember right) dalrock says, God is the head of man, man is the head of woman, is something I have ever heard preached from a church pulpit. And I have been going to church my whole life. This concept was not new to me when I read about it in the manosphere, however it was ever something taught in any church or bible study I have ever been to.

      After I saw this concept in this new light, I was a little angry with women (especially my mother who never submitted to my father and then left him once he stood up for himself). It was then that I realized that I had never truly submitted to God. How can I be the head of a woman if God is not the head of me?

      Originally I turned to the manosphere to answer the question “How come I have been single my whole life?”. The question God asked me back was, “How come I (God) have been single your whole life?’. It showed me that my priority’s were wrong.

      All this to say that I can heavily identify with for comment, and I too wish to become a man of great faith who only have bent knees for Jesus.

  6. drfuture says:

    I’ve read these links listed in these posts, and I’ve got a lot to process here, and sift through morally and intellectually. As a Christian, I cannot embrace those in the Manosphere who pursue polygamous relationships, and I think in the end they will find them less satisfying, at least by the time they become less sexually attractive themselves, and can attract less women who can “turn them on”. However, it points out a much-needed revolution by Christian men to stand firm on the convictions of right living they derive from Scripture, manly common sense and the advice of older, wiser men, and not be cowed by emotional, flighty women, who otherwise leave themselves and their loved ones as wrecks. This BS of “earning a woman’s respect” is unscriptural, as the command for respect is from the Lord Himself, without exceptions – the Word even commands women to stay yoked to unbelieving men, if possible! It does not appear that the woman is the vessel the Lord has chosen to use to reprimand the man to conform to God’s ways – this would be a substitute for the proper guidance from the Lord himself. It appears that the mission of the husband is to be the “husbandman” with the task of preparing his wife as a spiritual “spotless bride”, and to model the home as a microcosm of the relationship of Christ to His bride, and the nature of their relationship – it is a witness and testimony to an inquiring world, that will marvel when they see a quiet, orderly home that withstands crises and challenges with calmness and health. I think Christian young men, who are starved for a mate and have tolerated the games played by princesses in their churches, need to make it clear to their potential mates when contemplating marriage (or even well before) of their acknowledgement of their leadership role, and that if the potential mate cannot trust him to follow him unconditionally in total trust and devotion, then he is the wrong man for her and she needs to find another. This needs to be backed up by pastors and other Christian counselors, but I would not hold one’s breath waiting for that. This way, later in a marriage a man can expect to have the authority to lead his family (and the responsibilities it entails), and when enduring the dramatic displays of resistance, can be sure that he has not been guilty of “false advertising”. With each instance in which this scenario is established, then truly a man can “love his wife, as Christ loves the church”. I think one of the challenges that still remains even for these men is to know “when to say when”, and to know and discern the proper time when to blow off some differences as trivial and relent, to prevent their being constant combat over trivialities, and knowing when to hold one’s ground. The Golden Rule still applies to our mates as well as others, but a man should trust his abilities, and desire, to make his wife truly happy. However, as another man once told me, women often have trouble defining contentment even for themselves, which I think goes to the heart of many of these problems, and the proper man may need to assist her and tell her strongly what she should take comfort to be contented in, to relieve her of this task for which she may not be aptly equipped.

    • mustardnine says:

      @ Doc
      Well, there went your chance for a guest sermon at Mark Driscoll’s church. . . . and, you’re not applying to be on staff at Focus on the Family anytime soon, are you?

      • drfuture says:

        …so you’re saying I should not package the above into a front row shelf, Lifeway bookstore book? How about this – it could be the story arc for “Fireproof II – The 90 Minute Castration of a Man”…

  7. Jadams07 says:

    What guy has a chance when Christian Women have Jesus for their “Boyfriend”.

    I attended a small Private Christian School. After the movie the passion of the Christ came out there were several girls in my class talking about how hot Jesus was in that movie. They especially emphasized the scenes where he had his shirt off (aka when he was being tortured and crucified).

    Needless to say it made me sick to my stomach. Thinking back on it now, I should have told them that it would be like if I got my jollys out of watching a movie with Rape in it.

    • mustardnine says:

      Many guys in the Manosphere have commented on the basically “feral” nature of women. And they mean by nature, as in part of the Fall, perhaps. They are not simply talking about the results of modern feminism, which has certainly made matters worse. This was unsuspected by me; but upon consideration, I think that it is true. And if true, then most modern Christian men in America don’t realize it, and need to be informed.

    • mustardnine says:

      I’m reminded of the fact that the women of Washington DC packed picnic lunches and went out to watch the First Battle of Bull Run. Were they looking to get orgasms from watching the men kill each other? Since their side lost, they had to pack up and run back to Washington. They probably thought the Reb boys would want to rape them – wishful thinkng.

  8. mustardnine says:


    There is a brouhaha going on right now with Southern Baptist women.


    There is a kind of flagship blog, ‘ bwe Baptist Women for Equality ‘, with a current posting, Mothers Like Sarah. I haven’t gotten very far into it, but they seem to have a “theology” that turns New Testament scriptures about man-woman relations upside down and sideways. Draw your own conclusions.

    The link is here:

    If their theology is murky, their politics are not: its about arguing the victimhood of Christian women at the hands of their church leaders in general, and winning some arguments and battles. To facilitate this, they have formed the ‘Freedom for Christian Women Coalition’. ( FreeCWC )

    I notice that in “empowering” the women’s status in the church, it is all about their right to teach — and to teach whatever they want. Whatever they want does NOT seem to include anything about

    – loving their husbands
    – developing a happy, welcoming home
    – raising healthy, happy children

    At least, I haven’t run across it yet. Really, I haven’t seen the first use of the words home, husband, or children yet. So far, its all about Christian Women’s conventions, position papers, and bashing the somewhat more traditional ‘Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ group, which was active about 30 years ago, and may be active still. ( CBMW )

    Heck, they haven’t even talked about GOOD SEX yet! Seriously! Must not be getting any.


    One of their prime movers seems to be Shirley Taylor. She has written a book, Dethroning Male Headship, which I haven’t read and am not likely to.

    Her link is here:

    DALROCK has a good summary of what is going on, here, with lots of active comment:


    Comments on this are most welcome. The best bet is to hit the small reply button embedded under this comment, so we don’t derail the rest of the thread with this subtopic.

  9. Jadams07 says:

    Yeah boys do not need fathers right?

  10. mustardnine says:


    Well, THIS is a different king of blog for the Manosphere!


  11. mustardnine says:


    The blogger who goes by the nom-de-web “Rollo Tomassi” has been an important voice in the Manosphere for several years. He also frequently comments at Dalrock and other sites. Here is a seminal (pun is inadvertent, but appropriate) post on some fundamentals.


  12. mustardnine says:


    This commenter thinks, probably not.


  13. mustardnine says:


    And it is a pretty interesting discussion, too, for guys with a literary bent. I have given the link to the original post here below. But the Jane Austen discussion actually begins at about comment #15.


    • mustardnine says:

      Anthropomorphic: Thanks for the links. Personally, I found the first two articles stronger and clearer than the third. The “resolution” article seems to advocate nothing more than the usual old nostrums, of course urging that men must “defend” this or that.

      Sola scriptura, for example, doesn’t work very well when, after 500 years, Christian men who believe that (and I might be one) cannot agree on what that means. Suppose we could suddenly find agreement on what s.s. means: how would this help Christian men who live in a culture (including their women) that hardly cares about scripture at all?

      I suspect that Christian men are going to have to assert themselves, and assert their personal convictions, opinions, and beliefs — either individually, or in their small social groups. To wait for “the church” to lead is probably to waste time.

      • anthropomorphicpersonnification says:

        I agree, I really liked the first two the most. He does a good job explaining the different types of “Paradigm”s or “scripts” that we are living it. Even explaining the PUA or Playboy paradigm that is so popular in the Manosphere. It helps to be able to put words and “category” to feelings or thought I havent been able to express my self.

  14. mustardnine says:


    This is painful to read, but these men are being honest, and I find it tragic, in order not to find it horrifying — the implications are there.

    I am burying this in the comments, and not posting about it, so that I can keep a reference to this event, but not trouble most men with this.


  15. mustardnine says:



  16. mustardnine says:


    I think this essay is of crucial importance to men who want to understand what I will call “the manosphere phenomenon,” by which I mean the current male-female situation in the US and the manosphere response to it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s