*Today’s post is a follow-up from yesterday’s post, The Manosphere Needs a New Vessel. I wanted to provide some concrete evidence for my assertion that the manosphere, as it stands right now, will not go mainstream.*
Normie: Noun. Someone who embraces mainstream culture.
What does a normie think of the manosphere? I will show you. I came across some mainstream research entitled
The authors of the piece are neuroscientists who are obviously in favor of researching gender differences, something that is apparently controversial now in academia (god help us!). My friend Nick Black posted a neutral comment on their site and a link to one of Chateau Heartiste’s posts, hoping for an intelligent (yet mainstream) response:
Nice post. The fact that you even have to make the point that the genders are different is absurd. It also makes me glad I do not work in academia…yet at least.
I think this post begs another question: Even if we could make the genders as similar as possible and try to negate some of the hardwiring, would we want to? Men and women are wired certain ways for specific reasons.
Also Katy, I came across this a while ago and I am really curious to hear your intelligent thoughts on the scientific argument he puts forward: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/the-manjaw-ification-of-american-women-science/
Yea, probably a trigger warning on that one.
The response he got, from a Neuroscience Ph.D. student:
Whoa, you are posting a link to a pickup-artist website describing how folks treating their daughters as equal to their sons causes women to grow “man-jaws” in response to Katy’s very even-handed blog post about physiological sex differences? I don’t want to put words into Katy’s mouth, but I will take a few from her post above: “It should also be our responsibility to monitor the way our results are interpreted by outside sources and to counter misrepresentations.” I would describe that link as a misrepresentation of the research carried out by Amy Cudy. To put it lightly. (One of the many, many things wrong with it: we discussed using testosterone measurements to draw conclusions about behavior during previous sessions of the Neuroethics Journal Club — it is not a perfect method, and higher testosterone doesn’t always correlate with higher aggression, risk-taking, or other stereotypically “Alpha male” behaviors.)
I think Katy’s critiques of the way some feminists have approached research on sex differences are totally valid — it’s foolish to say that male and female brains aren’t different just because their gross anatomy is the same. But, reading blog posts like the one you linked makes it easy to see why some feminists feel the need to take hard-line positions against the use of scientific research to “prove” sex differences, especially when it comes to studies on brains and behavior (as opposed to more socially neutral processes like digestion). When a study on elevated circulating testosterone (in both men and women!) under certain conditions is used to argue that the “rancid ideology” of feminism is being used to “MAKE WOMEN MANLIER,” it’s enough to make me want to give up on those kinds of studies forever. Thankfully I’m not the only scientist in the world, so I’m sure someone will keep on doing them. (emphasis mine)
To sum up, she calls the manosphere a ‘rancid ideology.’
Push hard, and you’ll only encounter more resistance.
Personally, I think anyone who thinks the manosphere is going to suddenly pop out of the woodwork in 2013 is delusional.
Commenter Francis Begbie sums up:
With all the white nationalist shit at Roissy’s blog, Roosh’s pessimism, Dalrock’s christian slant, Rollo’s academia style of writing, there’s little there to appeal to the mainstream. Roosh is the unofficial head of The Manosphere at this stage, and like you said, he isn’t really marketable.
Do you think the manosphere will go big time mainstream any time soon?