New to AMR? Please read our subreddit rules and our FAQ before posting!

Every woman here needs to read this. I wish I had read this 15 years ago.

Some of you may have heard of "Pick up artists" and "Scammers" but I sure didn't know how rampant and how diabolical that kind of practice was. After going through a couple insane relationships that seemed to follow a similar pattern (and ultimately blaming myself), I found out from a friend what methods some of the men use to strategize.

This is taken directly from the Dark Psychology or Pick Up Artist subreddit, that I've been lurking on to find out how this works and I'm sharing it with you:

ROLLER COASTER METHOD

1. Know Your Target Inside Out: The first step is to dig deep into what makes your target tick. Find out what they love, what they hate, what excites them, and what drags them down. This knowledge is your weapon—use it wisely.
2. Create a Blissful High: Start by making them feel like they’re on top of the world. For a week or so, do everything that makes them happy. Compliment them, give them attention, fulfill their desires—whatever it takes to put them in a state of bliss. The goal is to build trust and emotional dependence.
3. Introduce the Low: Once they’re comfortable and reliant on you for happiness, it’s time to flip the script. For a couple of days, do everything that frustrates or saddens them. The key here is unpredictability. Don’t let them catch on to any pattern—vary the good and bad experiences in different ratios each time. This inconsistency keeps them off balance and unsure of what’s coming next.
4. Repeat and Reinforce: Over time, this emotional roller coaster will wear them down. They’ll start to lose their grip on what makes them happy or sad, and they’ll become more emotionally dependent on you. They won’t know whether to expect joy or despair, and this confusion makes them easier to control.
5. The Grand Disappearance: After six months to a year of this cycle, vanish from their life without warning. Leave them to wrestle with their mixed emotions alone. If they try to reach out, reject them coldly or simply disappear without a trace. This final act leaves them in a state of emotional turmoil, unsure of how to process their feelings or who to trust.

Stay safe and let your friends know. Some men are only using soft pick up tactics but others will stop at nothing.

Online dating is...something else. I'm trying to find the right wording when talking about some of the ridiculously privileged, problematic, etc things I've seen coming from men.

Something with the same feel as "caucasity" when referring to the audacity of someone's white privilege.

edit: AI had a few ideas, too. Thoughts on these?

Problematic things (like in #3) that I didn't catch?

1. Testosterocity
2. Egoacity/egocity
3. Chauvinocity (I like this, but I think it's a no-go because, you know, mreR*r's name, and I live in MN, so...🤮)
4. entitleman
   1. fusion of "entitlement" and "man," pointing to the audacity driven by a sense of male privilege.
5. hubricity
   1. combines "hubris" with a suffix that suggests a state or quality, akin to words like "audacity" or "duplicity." This term captures the essence of male arrogance, excessive pride, or overconfidence, often rooted in entitlement or chauvinism. "Hubricity" suggests a persistent or habitual state of hubris
6. brodacity
7. broverconfidence
   1. "bro" with "overconfidence," highlighting the bravado and arrogance often seen in stereotypically macho behavior

🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

•According to the CDC, divorce rate is down significantly from 2000 when it was 4.0 per 1,000 people, but the rate of marriage has also declined . There were 8.2 marriages per 1,000 people in 2000 and 6.1 marriages per 1,000 people in 2019.- justgreatlawyers.com

-So divorce rates are down because less people are getting married.

•45% of women will be single and childless by 2030- Census Bureau and Morgan Stanley (this study has been cited by theguardian.com Aug 31, 2019, CNN, and numerous others)

*Article- First men, now boys are going their own way **Note: If the link doesn’t work just type “First men, now boys are going their own way” into a search engine and look for an article from www.news.com.au https://www.news.com/au/lifestyle/parenting/teens/first-men-now-boys-are-going- their-own-way/news-story/7aa04498e3c2673ecd4f47573258b10

*Article- Guys who give up on dating & their real reasons https://www.womenio.com/10821/guys-who-give-up-on-dating

*Article-15 legitimate reasons why men are choosing to be single and giving up on women https://www.Securesingle.com/15-reasons-single-men-giving-up-on-women/

*Article- https://www.psypost.org/2022/10/new-study-identifies-an-increasing-disintrest-in-fatherhood-among-childless-men-in-the-united-states-64072

*Guy tells men to avoid American women: https://youtu.be/rSx3X3ig1rU

*Article- Radical Feminism and the rise of the “MGTOW” movement https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/radical-feminism-rise-mgtow-movement

*Article- https://www.thepostmillennial.com/half-of-single-men-avoid-approaching-women-for-fear-of-seeming-creppy

*Article- https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/half-of-single-men-avoid-interacting-with-women-out-of-fear-being-creepy

I hope this is an appropriate subject - it just feels like the best/only place to ask. Obviously We Hunted the Mammoth is a long-running blog dedicated to mocking MRAs and other "manosphere" types, which ran from the early 2010s to around the summer of 2023, when it went on hiatus. It now links to this "coming soon" page, which has been up for 6+ months. The author's social media appears to have gone totally dead around January or February of this year.

I totally get that nothing is forever and people move on, and of course the blog basically fulfilled its stated function. At the same time, it all feels a bit sudden. Does anyone know what's going on? Is the dude all right? Are there still plans to revive the site?

​

Are there any adjacent groups to this one? I am a misandrist woman looking for my community

I know they are both part of the manosphere but I nearly never see these groups talk about each other. I don't see what disagreement they would have though. I did see Paul Elam and Karen Straughan do an interview with Pearl but that's about it. I doubt they called out Pearl for saying that men don't care about spending time with their wives and just want sex and food (Yes she actually tweeted that out). I mean that is the most popular creator in the manosphere spewing actual misandry. I wouldn't want someone that represents men ever speaking that way about men. The ONLY type of people I see spew this rhetoric are radical feminists that hate men. They call out rad fems for saying this rhetoric but never their own side.

I also noticed this phenomenon. Why is it when a male advocate says "Men only care about sex and food in a relationship" that is male empowerment. But when a feminist makes the exact same statement it is misandry. It makes no sense to me.

So this is just the "catalogue of men can do whatever they feel like whenever they feel like it, and women must always do what men want" lmao. I like how most of the commentary about each accusation is essentially, " You may be right, but I don't like how you phrased it. Feels, not reals."

Men can overgeneralize about women, even though it's a logical fallacy to assert that "all X are Y," but women cannot commit an "ad hominem," even though that's also a logical fallacy. Men can get angry because it's "righteous indignation," but women can't because it's a logical fallacy.

Oh no, I think I'm breaking some code here. I think that makes me a man-hating, ugly feminist or something :D

https://preview.redd.it/oiw55hd3xqsc1.png?width=1900&format=png&auto=webp&s=b2289ea22c12a2a32ebde332204b9cac0ee6d67a

​

If you search on YouTube "Andrew Tate scams men" you will see a video of Andrew Tate talking about how he used to scam men. Wouldn't you think that he would be condemned by the manosphere for this. You would see multiple Manosphere channels reacting to this and saying he should not be considered a role model for men for scamming them. It would be like if Bernie Sanders paid his workers' minimum wage and then talked about how he cares about the working class. I mean look at Cardi B. People in the manosphere hate her for robbing men. But when Tate does it. CRICKETS. He also did it in the cam business. You will repeatedly see the Manosphere saying Onlyfans models/cam models are ruining society. They will always roast them. But when Tate employs them to do cam work. CRICKETS. It's like saying murder is bad but it is fine to hire a hitman to kill people. If you look at some of the comments that were defending him, it was disturbing. The defense was unironically "Well these men were dumb enough to fall for the scam so they deserved it". No, I am not joking. That was the defense. That's how scams work. You find people dumb enough to fall for them. If a lawyer used that in court, Tate would instantly be found guilty.

If it was some random Onlyfans model saying what Tate said in that video she would have been crucified within the manosphere. She would be the poster child for why modern women suck. You would see Manosphere channels making videos on her saying "This modern woman scammed men out of their money". Where are all the MRA's condemning Tate for this? I'm sure if they care about men they should care about public figures posing as role models for them.

​

​

Many times, you hear anti-feminists saying that patriarchy theory is absurd and false, and that it's based on anti-male sexism, etc. Warren Farrell in his books (like "The myth of male power") and many other people who argue from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology like Roy Baumeister (in his book "Is there anything good about men?") have tried to "debunk" patriarchy theory, most of the time without citing any feminist thinker. The reality is that most of the time, they"debunk" a strawman feminism that they themselves invented. And if what they say about the "real" history of gender relations is true, there was never any sort of oppression of anyone in history, period. Let's take a closer look:

How anti-feminists view patriarchy theory:

• There was a conspiracy among men - all men - to come together and oppress women - all women - out of sheer evileness. The result was that all men had power and no man could be a victim of anything, and all women were powerless and victims.

Then they try to "debunk" it with following arguments:

• (1) Men suffered too

Men died in wars and in dangerous work, men were the majority of homeless, prisoners, homicide victims, suicide, etc.

• (2) Men suffered from gendered expectations

This is not only about suffering in general, it's about suffering related to gendered expectations: Men were expected to be providers, to not show weakness, etc.

• (3) Women supported patriarchy

Many women enforced gender roles on both women and men, like slut-shaming women or shaming men who show weakness.

• (4) Women got benefits from patriarchy

Women were provided and protected for by men, so they didn't need to go to war or work. They also benefitted from being treated nicer (including stuff like chivalry), and be seen as nurturers.

This is actually seen as "debunking" patriarchy (yes, seriously). Obviously, this doesn't debunk anything, and it's not something that feminists have never paid attention to. But before I go to that, let's make clear how these arguments are so bad, that if someone believes them, he would need to believe there was never any sort of oppression of anyone in history. For this, let's consider other examples of oppression in history.

• Feudalism: (1) The monarchs and oligarchs suffered too, many were killed in wars or uprisings, (2) The monarchs and oligarchs suffered because of being in the royal family or in the upper classes, there was more arranged marriage, more forced lifestyles, more dangers of birth defects because of incest, (3) The peasants supported feudalism, many loved the king and gladly fought every of his opponents, (4) The peasants benefitted from feudalism, they could get land and food from their masters.
• Theocracy: (1) The Christians suffered too, they had to fight for their religion in wars, (2) The Christians suffered because of Christian rituals forced upon them and they could be persecuted as heretics, (3) The Jews and other minorities sometimes supported theocracy, as they could get protection from Christians, (4) The Jews benefitted from theocracy, they could work as bankers and get rich.
• White Supremacy: (1) Whites suffered too, they had to fight in wars all the time, (2) Whites suffered because of White Supremacy, one third of lynching victims were white and whites weren't allowed to love blacks, (3) Some blacks were "Uncle Toms" who supported their white masters, others took blacks slaves themselves after being freed, (4) Blacks could benefit from White Supremacy by using narratives about their athleticism or genitals to impress others.
• Homophobia: (1) Straight people suffered too, their sexuality was under policing as everyone else's, (2) Straight people suffered from homophobia too, they weren't allowed to do things that looked "gay", (3) Many gays supported homophobia, even attacked or killed other gay for being gay, (4) Gays could benefit from homophobia, as long as they kept in the closet, they could be seen as artistic and empathetic people by others.

You see the point. There was never oppression of anyone then, right? Of course this is absurd to say. The anti-feminists are simply trying to debunk a strawman version of patriarchy (and feminism) that they themselves invented. In reality, all historical oppression was more nuanced than anti-feminists' strawman patriarchy.

• Oppression based on one demographic seen as superior to the other doesn't require a conspiracy of the supposed superior group, it's enough if a few establish it by force; and it doesn't have to be defended only by the members of the supposed superior group and only attacked by members from the supposed inferior group, defenders and opponents of the oppression can come from any group.

So obviously not all whites came together and decided to oppress blacks while no white suffered from anything, and not all straight people came together and decided to oppress gays while no straight person suffered from anything; and obviously there were Uncle Toms and homophobic gays as well as white and straight people who suffered from White Supremacy and homophobia. This doesn't disprove the historical reality of White Supremacy and homophobia. Maybe at this point it would be a good idea to define "oppression based on one demographic seen as superior to the other":

• It means that laws and social norms give more power (enforcing your will) to the supposed superior demographic.

It's overwhelmingly clear that in the past, laws and social norms gave more power to whites than blacks, and to straight people than gay people. And of course it's overwhelmingly clear that historically, in most societies laws and social norms gave more power to men than women. This doesn't mean, as argued above, that men didn't suffer and suffered from gendered expectations too, or that no woman enforced patriarchy or benefitted from patriarchy. It means that ultimately, men had far, far more power (being able to enforce your will) than women, given by law and social norms, from the top of society to the bottom of society.

Here just the U.S as example:

• In politics, women weren't even allowed to hold office until 1920.
• In economics, women were barred from many occupations until the 19th century, including law and medicine, and many colleges barred women.
• In marriage, until the 19th century married women needed their husbands' permission to be allowed to work, and couldn't own property, a business, or even sue.
• In social attitudes, women were seen as less rational, intelligent and creative than men (so, more emotional, dumb, and uncreative), and straight male sexuality was accepted while straight female sexuality was shamed.
• Summed up: Men were seen as superior to women, and they were advantaged by law in most spheres, from politics, economics to the small household.

So yeah, it's absolutely unquestionable that U.S. society gave more power to men than women because it saw men as superior to women. It's weird that anti-feminists believe they can "debunk" this by saying "But men suffered too! And women supported the gender roles too!", as if that would change anything. If anything, it shows that opposing one oppressive system is not about hating the group that is seen as superior in that system, so it's not about being "anti-men." The same way as:

• Being against oligarchy isn't hating rich people and believing poor people can do no wrong, it's about being against oligarchy, no matter who enforces it;
• Being against Christian theocracy isn't hating Christians and believing non-Christians can do no wrong, it's about being against Christian theocracy, no matter who enforces it;
• Being against White Supremacy isn't hating whites and believing non-whites can do no wrong, it's about being against White Supremacy, no matter who enforces it;
• Being against homophobia isn't hating straight people and believing gays can do no wrong, it's about being against homophobia, no matter who enforces it;

is true, it's true that:

• Being against patriarchy isn't hating men and believing women can do no wrong, it's about being against patriarchy, no matter who enforces it.

Basically, people like Warren Farrell and Roy Baumeister have no idea about feminism and patriarchy theory, and believe that "finding out" that men suffered and some women supported gender roles is a big "debunking", when of course it's not even close. Most arguments against patriarchy theory are strawman arguments like this.

Men's issues usually involve high suicide rate, child custody, mental health or the loneliness "epidemic"

I think that Majorly, these issues are caused at the hands of other men and what society expects from Men. I have seen men especially the red pill ones blaming these issues on feminism and not actually understanding the root cause of it. I think the root cause of such issues have a historical essence (and also perpetuated by patriarchy itself.

1. Let's take child custody for example: Men are less likely to get child custody because there is a patriarchal expectation behind this which is the traditional roles - Man (protector ‚provider) - Women (housewife, takes care of children, cook and clean). Patriarchy promotes the idea that it's a women's job to take care of children, this idea also promotes by red pill because they think women shouldn't work outside of the home but at the same time they expect Men to win custody. You can't have it both ways.

2. suicide rate or mental health - we can't deny many men perpetuate the idea of a strict toxic man voided of any feelings. Men aren't expected to be vulnerable, not even with ' own friends. Also quite a lot of men ignore mental health problems of Gay or queer men which I find very hypocritical. You either stand for all men or vou don't. I have seen men complain that male victims aren't taken seriously yet the moment A man was a rape victim - he should have enjoyed or I see some men say they wish they were the "victims". I see a lot of hate towards men who are feminine or wear makeup or just aren't masculine according to societal standards- such men are immediately shunned by other men.

3. Male Loneliness Epidemic - I genuinely don't understand how loneliness is an epidemic for men but that's not the case with women. I think it's because of the fact that women's friendships or relationships in general have more emotional bond as compared to men.

Many men don't have genuine friendships in their life or relationships in general. And on the other side, I see a lot of hate for women from lonely men because they feel entitled to our bodies, they feel entitled to sex. So of course no woman would date such a guy.

The internet is full of male advocacy groups. Many rightfully see how extremely misogynistic and toxically masculine these groups are, but I have seen how many don't see the nuances among the different groups. One thing that many don't seem to fully understand is how many of these hateful male advocates are leftists, and some even self-proclaimed feminists. Yet they share a common ideology.

I. The character of male advocacy groups

(1) Most of these male advocacy groups consist of people (mostly men) who are deeply concerned about what they call "masculinity" - how men should behave, which interests they should have, and generally men's role in society.

(2) Most (maybe all) of these male advocacy groups have a visceral, relentless hatred of feminism. Even the few self-proclaimed feminists hate feminism.

You could ask why people who are concerned about masculinity would care so much about feminism (to the point that I would say that the people most obsessed about feminism in the world are not feminists, but these male advocates). There is a clear reason: They believe that there were clear gender roles in the past, but then feminism came and "destabilized" everything by changing women's traditional role (that was being forced to be a submissive, virgin-until-marriage housewife from 18 until death), and changing women's role made men obsolote (if women can now work and provide for themselves, what should men do with their life???), which means that modern men are lost because of feminism.

II. The different fractions

There are two fractions of in the male advocacy sphere:

• The right-wing fraction. They want to solve the problem by returning to traditional gender roles. Women should be forced to be submissive, virgin-until-marriage housewives again, so men have their traditional role back: Provide and protect for their wife and children. Examples: Conservative influencers like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Chris Williamson, groups like the Redpill, parts of the men's rights movement, also MGTOW and Andrew Tate (who actually advice men in the West to *not* behave traditional as a protest against feminism, but ultimately support traditional gender roles).
• The left-wing fraction. They want to solve the problem by forcing women to date, have sex and marry men who are unable to find partners in the modern dating market (according to incels, these men are typically short, poor, sensitive, etc., instead of tall, rich, stoic), and women should make the first move, so basically: Women should start to aggressively pursue men who are incels (= short, poor, sensitive) instead of waiting to be approached by men who are Chads (= tall, rich, stoic), so that finally all men can accept feminism because no man has to fear that women being free to provide for themselves means they will die a virgin. Examples: Parts of the men's rights movement (especially Warren Farrell), most left-wing anti-feminists and incels, some male feminists (seriously) and almost all self-proclaimed "nice guys."

The right-wing fraction is the louder one, and probably the more dangerous, but the left-wing fraction is probably bigger and also dangerous. At the end of the day, both fractions are all about men who are deeply concerned about their masculinity, hate feminism - and see as the only solution to find ways to force women to date them and never leave them.

I'm not sure how important the difference between the two is. One important difference could be that right-wingers seem to want to be able to get a traditional housewife (submissive, virgin, wanting many kids, and especially *never divorce*), while left-wingers are more concerned about getting any partner at all, not caring about the woman being traditional or not (that doesn't mean that right-wingers are less likely to have difficulties to find a partner, many right-wingers are incels). I think it's possible that some left-wing male advocates would accept returning to 100% traditional gender roles if it means they would get a wife, and many right-wingers would forget about traditional housewives if they would be sure that they could get a wife that never divorces them.

III. Motivations

An actually important difference could be their motivation. Most men will never be part of the male advocacy sphere, so how do some men end up there? Two reasons are very easily detectable:

• Men who have an enormous identity crisis that is eating them alive. These men have something about them that is not "traditionally masculine", they are ashamed of it, and cope with being extremely toxically masculine. Examples could be men who are secretly gay/bi, like Steven Crowder (some suspect Ben Shapiro, he wrote a book full of homo-erotic scenes, Michael Knowles played a gay character in a short film, etc.), men who are into cuckolding (Sneako, Jack Murphy), or men who are very sensitive/neurotic (Jordan Peterson, who says "weak men are bad", but cries like the Niagara river). Instead of owning who they are free of shame, they try to make all men as miserable as they are with their extreme versions of "masculinity" (women are only marginally important to their problem, but end up victimized).

• Men who have bad social skills (social anxiety, autism) and end up extremely lonely. These men usually had neglectful parents and ended up being bullying victims, friendless, often times NEET, and adult virgins. Examples are a lot of incels (research show autists are heavily overrepresented among incels), the most famous example being mass shooter Elliot Rodgers, who was diagnosed as autistic. There are also left-wing figures like the blogger Scott Alexander or the professor Scott Aaronson who gained legendary prominence among the male advocacy sphere after coming out as hating feminism because they didn't get laid when they were young, lonely nerds, meanwhile right-wing misogynist Richard Hanania openly admitted that as a young man, he hated women solely because he was a lonely virgin. Instead of learning social skills (I thought nerds are so intelligent?), they decided to hate women, feminism and the world for not knowing how to get a girlfriend to cure their soul-crushing loneliness.

Most men who have an identity crisis surrounding their masculinity become right-wing, meanwhile men who become misogynists after suffering from loneliness can end up both right-wing or left-wing. Many autistic men might be attracted to traditional gender roles because they struggle with social rules, and traditional gender roles are a clear "playbook" on how to behave.

IV. Possible solutions

Here is another big misconception: People think you can fight this movement by providing men with "better alternatives." But first, most men don't need to be told an alternative to enslaving women for not demanding the enslaving of women, second, there is already tons of good advice for men available on how to get social skills, becoming fit in the gym, get dates, finding a good career, etc., but these men reject them all and choose misogyny because that's what they want. Creating a "new" masculinity ("healthy", "positive", whatever) is not the solution, most men have no problems with how they view their masculinity, or just don't care (which is okay, too). What is really needed is:

• A crackdown of the most dangerous groups, especially incel forums, and hateful manosphere channels on social media (like Redpillers on Youtube). Governments should treat these groups like they treat every terrorist threat (incel violence has at least killed 26 people in the Anglosphere).
• Deradicalization programs for men who want to leave these groups, they could receive social support and validation and maybe hear some counter-arguments to their ideology. After they're deradicalized, they could easily find the good advice for men themselves.

Unfortunately, I think there's not much more that can be done. I know that there's a pipeline from "light" misogyny like Chris Williamson or Scott Alexander to more serious cases like Jordan Peterson or Elliot Rodgers, but obviously you can't deplatform every bad person. However, if the most radical groups are taken out, it would already be a very big success.

Lately, I've been feeling a bit down and insecure, and I don't have a ton of friends IRL that I feel comfortable talking about this stuff with, unfortunately. So I've tried looking for supportive communities online (I know they can be hit-or-miss but I figured I'd give it a shot), and it was genuinely sad realizing how many of the places which claim to be "support groups for men" are so much more focused on making offensive generalizations of women (and even men) and promoting hate than they are actually giving constructive support to the people they claim to care about. I was kind of giving up hope when somehow I ended up here and saw a comment linking to GC.

The GC sub has been a breath of fresh air, honestly. To any other guys (or girls) going through anything, I highly recommend it, it's really cheered me up during a tough time 🙂.

It basically boiled down to:

1. Not being able to show emotion. Women expect men to "be a man"
2. Having to pay child support

What is a good way to respond to something like this?

In a household, would it be acceptable for the man to be the sole provider for the two of them, as long as he brings home his check and gives it to her, so she can decide what to do with it as she sees fit?

In other words, he provides the income, and she takes control of it.
Would this be a good and healthy way to go about him being the sole provider?

Thanks in advance for your answer, and any additional thoughts.

I would love to have a day in which we show love, empathy and support for men. This would be a good thing, so many men, even men with families and jobs, say they feel like no one cares about them, and many men say how they remember the last compliment they got 10 years ago. Imagine a day in which men and women give male family members, male friends and colleagues, and even stranger men compliments, and explain what they like about men.

But the International Men's Day is not good for this. You can see how many use it to only mention achievements of famous men (politicians, intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, etc.) and the sacrifices of anonymous men (workers, soldiers, etc.), and then use this to insult and denigrate women ("See?? Men are just smarter than women, so of course most scientists were men!!") or to justify their entitlement towards women ("We build the entire civilization, all streets, bridges, energy grids, so stop calling us toxic and become housewives again!!"). It's very rare to see people using the day to celebrate men just for being men, it always degenerates in shitting on feminism or women in general.

Sadly, I don't know if this will ever change. I would really like to have a day to celebrate men, so many men would like to hear nice words and compliments. But it's difficult to imagine it happen.