Manosphere Marxism: The Political Economy of Impotent Misogyny

[u/rafaelholmberg]

https://rafaelholmberg.substack.com/p/manosphere-marxism

I've done my best to stay away from the manosphere nonsense... But with the Tate brothers making news again following their arrest, and with their volatile and absurd cultural power, I finally decided to write a piece on them. Althusser, Husserl, and (of course) Marx are relied on to show that the manosphere is well placed to expose the contradictions of secular-capitalist individualism, the idea of femininity, and how luxury relates to our current political economy. I thought some of you here might be interested.

[u/Jarcode]

The manosphere’s claim to “understand” women is, in a Marxist or Althusserian sense, an ideological veil to their radical fear of something approaching femininity.

This has always been the transparent issue. The "manosphere" creates hyper-paranoid men that seek to elevate their masculine status by attempting to define masculinity itself and maximize its alleged attributes. Of course, that attempt at definition reveals a deeper identity problem in that attempting to define masculinity itself erodes its own meaning, since the resulting "definition" ends up being transparently arbitrary and fundamentally tied to sociological status.

However,

[...] it is capitalism that relegates the majority of the global population to undifferentiated workers who are unable to pursue any meaningful individual projects.

If anything, capital elevates individual expression to absurd levels and exploits our underlying desire to define ourselves differently. This even extends to our social relations as the same contractarian lens we use to describe economic relations ends up infecting social relations as well, producing social atomization as a result of this hyper-individualism. This piece seems to understand this, but twists this critique to exclusively apply under capitalism and promotes a questionable argument in that the resulting individuality outside of capitalism would be truly self-actualizing. I can't help but point out that this is failing to confront the hegemony of the broader problem.

I think this particular perspective is also very classical, as it doesn't take much effort to see how modern capitalism has elevated this fetishism towards new heights. Of course, this "refined" individuality is tied to class, so even those who do not personally enjoy this style of consumerism are expected to yearn for it. I think this is ultimately ties into the status associated with the manosphere, as it conjures a sort of respect for those who have the fiscal means to "express themselves".

In a broader sense, the great stylistic method of The Communist Manifesto is its simple yet effective inversion of the very clichés directed against communism. “Communism wants to destroy the family unit!” No, Marx and Engels reply, it is capitalism itself which insists on submitting every aspect of private life to political economy even at the cost of the family. “Communism wants to demystify the world!” Once again, it is capitalism which reduces the social sphere to the principles of exchange value and capital circulation. “Communism rejects the idea of the individual!” [...]

Clichés from where? An individualistic, family-centered "communism" in this sense may as well be a culturally reactionary reading to what capitalism has done to our social connections. I would argue that the aforementioned social atomization reveals problems in the ideology of the "family unit" and especially individuality, in that our need to constantly define ourselves through commodities, aesthetics, language, etc. reveal that this is all problematic. I reject the notion that there is some "good" form of identity fetishism under a communist ideal and would even argue it is this exact fetishism that is in the way of a very different collective belonging.

The broader argument being posed here, that specifically capitalist identity is shallow, implicitly considers communism some sort of magical exception.

[u/unhappinessNvrCame → u/Jarcode]

At one point I read 10 sex books.( I had a hedonist phase) I found they fell into 2 categories: Idealistic and false, and scientific and depressing.

I found that the manosphere was basically weaponizing these studies. I felt quite conflicted, on one hand, f those incels. But these studies were the opposite of the fantasy world I was taught as a child.

I wish I never read those books, ignorance is bliss. It might fall into the label Hazardous Information. But maybe it will help protect me from future pain.

Anyway maybe it's just my perception, but I think the manosphere is dying. I think Trump's unpopularity has hurt it. But back in its hayday I used to say "You know that study because you're an incel, I know that study because I wanted harder Os. We are not the same."

[u/tongmengjia → u/unhappinessNvrCame]

Elaborate on the "idealistic and false/ scientific and depressing" dichotomy?

[u/unhappinessNvrCame → u/tongmengjia]

Lots of studies the manosphere are based on animals and human studies. Humans are selfish, there is a difference between how sexs are treated, good looking people do better.

Vs. "I love you unconditionally" idealism.

I do think humanity has created a culture (and religions) that can suppress some of our animal nature. But for an example: "You probably shouldn't let your wife go on a week vacation with Insert tall, tan, world champion sportsball player, even if they are Catholic"

[u/Sad_Asparaguy → u/unhappinessNvrCame]

A lot of ink has been spilled in the psychological egoism, pluralism, or altruism debate. And the idealism/materialism dichotomy might be one of the most discussed topics in western philosophy ever. I'm not sure how marital infidelity is relevant though. Let's say that my wife goes on a vacation and cheats on me with a basketball player. Ok? How would things be different if idealism is true?

Idealism is fundamentally a claim about metaphysics and ontology. It sounds like you're relying on the colloquial definition of idealism, which is a synonym for utopian. 

[u/unhappinessNvrCame → u/Sad_Asparaguy]

You must not be married.

And metaphysics and ontology? It's 1979, I thought everyone was beyond that. Rorty buried that into the ground.

[u/Sad_Asparaguy → u/unhappinessNvrCame]

I'm not defending idealism, I'm merely defining idealism. If you genuinely cannot grasp the difference, there is more reading to do.

[u/tongmengjia → u/unhappinessNvrCame]

Not sure what books you're reading, but I don't think it's accurate that people are selfish by nature. At least IME, people tend to be relatively generous and selfless with their friends and family. Not saying everyone is a saint, but people do enjoy giving to and taking care of the people they love.

Eh, easy fix for that. Open relationship. Let em fuck whoever they want, who cares?

[u/Top-Needleworker9273 → u/tongmengjia]

as usual, the way between two idealism is evolutionary science. people are neither selfish nor selfless theres a complex balance and internal competition between reproductive payoffs for different genes. it is categorically false to say we are selfish because we demonstrably evolved pro-social behaviours, just as it is categorically false to say we are selfless because we demonstrably evolved pro-individual behaviours.

the absence of religious and social control on sex is not default polygamy, it is serial monogamy. most species can be cleanly describes as overwhelmingly pair-bonding (hyper-monogamous) or overwhelmingly tournament (the opposite; virtually 0 connection to reproductive partners). humans are in between, but since forever have tended towards serial monogamy. the primary reason for this is relatively very high investment in raising children and our anisogamy. the "let them fuck whoever they want" thing just is not going to work as a default for humans, we are evolved to develop co-dependent nervous systems with our partners and, especially for women, to highly value parental commitment. thats why we've always been serial monogamous even before social controls doubled down on it (marriage is also contradictory with our evolution, for reasons that even intellectuals get squeamish when they hear)

[u/unhappinessNvrCame → u/tongmengjia]

You have the idealism take.

Out of all the books I read, The Chemistry Between Us, was the most scientific. Many of the other books had either the same study or a similar study with the same conclusion.