Book Review: "Men Who Hate Women" by Laura Bates
What is the Manosphere?
Overall Rating: 3.5/5.0
This year, Trump's electoral success with young men under 30 surprised me. Part of that success has been attributed to his ability to connect with "the manosphere." This, apparently, was due, at least in part, to his decision to appear on key podcasts as recommended by his son Barron, who now attends school at NYU.
I had previously heard of the manosphere a couple of years back when it was discussed in Matt McManus's book What is Post-Modern Conservatism? The treatment there was mocking and, admittedly, often quite hilarious. However, it did not convey to me that the manosphere was anything to be taken seriously any time soon. By contrast, Laura Bates's Men Who Hate Women is much more serious and can fairly be called a louder sounding of the alarm bells.
Overview of Contents
Bates discusses the key communities in the manosphere. She presents them in order from most to least odious. The most odious are Incels: men who would like to have sex with women but who consider themselves so unappealing that this is not an option. Although she states that it is not all of them, Bates argues that Incels, overall, have adopted a memeplex that is extremely hateful of women to the point of celebrating and encouraging rape and violence against them. Mass murderers, most prominently Elliot Rodger, are lionized, and Incels are encouraged to follow in his footsteps. Bates gained first-hand knowledge of Incels by spending a year in these communities under the pseudonym of "Alex." She argues that the community was responsible for about 60 murders at the time of writing and that it meets the definition of terrorism.
Bates lays out Incel philosophy, where a key tenet is that since women are only inclined to have sex with a minority of men, the remaining ones are justified in raping women if they are not in the fortunate minority (about 20% according to Incelism.) According to Incelism, modern society has exacerbated this natural tendency of women to only be attracted to a small number of men. In the past, economic dependence on men forced women into marriage, even with the 80% of unattractive men, but today feminism and economic empowerment have diminished this desire and reason for women to be with unattractive men.
Next down the rung of odiousness is Pickup Artists (PUAs). Bates argues that PUAs, unlike incels, have generally not given up on trying to have consensual sex with women, although they do share parts of the underlying philosophy. PUAs, by contrast, use various techniques, often presented in pseudo-scientific ways, to prey on and psychologically manipulate women into having sex. Bates argues that prominent PUAs have made confessions that they have raped women and do not completely condemn it (for example, one leading PUA, RooshV, stated that rape laws should not be enforced if it occurred on private property.)
Next down the ladder are the MGTOWs: Men Going Their Own Way. Here, they have decided that they want nothing to do with women. This could be because, like Incels, they believe that it is not an option for them to begin with, or they feel that any encounter with a woman carries too much of a risk of a life-destroying false rape accusation, or that women simply are not worth the effort. The MGTOW community, apparently, has a series of levels. At the highest levels, one has not only withdrawn from relationships with women but to a schizoid life, completely withdrawn from society and "off the grid."
On the penultimate step to the bottom of the ladder are "Men's Right Activists" (MRAs). Here, Bates argues that their primary goal is to undermine feminism. They do this, for instance, by arguing against any special funding to help female victims of domestic abuse using false statistics suggesting that men are nearly as likely as women to be victims. Bates argues that MRAs blur the lines where there may be legitimate concerns, such as fathers being wrongfully overly disfavored when it comes to custody battles. However, she argues that, even here, the case is vastly overstated.
Finally, a key part of Bates's thesis is that there is a group of men who are just barely within the line of social acceptability, such as Jordan Peterson, but who, nevertheless, are responsible for gradually allowing slightly sanitized versions of the misogyny inherent in the manosphere into mainstream society. Bates argues that the alt-right, consciously through figures like Steven Bannon, blurs into Trumpism and makes extensive use of manosphere philosophy. Bates sees Incel ideas percolating up, offering those willing to take a first small step an array of options as to how much initial odiousness they can stomach before they descend completely down the rabbit hole.
The Book's Strengths
Although it does lose a bit of steam by discussing the most repugnant and dramatic elements of the manosphere first, the book is engaging throughout and always accessible. There is no recourse to esoteric areas of feminist philosophy and no academic jargon. The book is medium-length (about 12 hours of Audible time.) This seems like the correct length since I did not find the book at all repetitive or that there were parts that should have been left out.
Bates relies heavily on direct quotations, not paraphrasing, to make her points. In the introduction, Bates discusses how she decided not to paraphrase any of it. Much of what is quoted, some of it from online communications sent to and threatening her personally, is completely abhorrent. Exposing it as-is was the right choice, although it is not easy to read.
In the best parts, Bates follows her own excellent advice that the arguments of the manosphere must be tackled directly, not just through shaming anyone who has started down that path. Bates also points out that some in the manosphere are genuinely worthy of help and pity, and some are just passing through a sad stage in life. At the same time, she is, of course, not naïve enough to think that some should not be viewed in any kind of sympathetic light at all.
The Book's Weaknesses
The book's primary weaknesses lie where Bates does not follow her own advice. Specifically, she often does not tackle manosphere notions head-on but relies on the fact that many in her audience will find the arguments unworthy of discussion due to the conclusions they may lead to. In one case where Bates discusses how the manosphere's notions of the prevalence of false rape accusations are ridiculously overstated, she is quite effective.
At other times, however, she bypasses the discussion or does not completely "steelman" the positions she disagrees with. For instance, she mentions how the manosphere is wrong to write off campus rape statistics. To do this, she quotes extreme positions, such as some saying, "It is all made up." She does not, however, acknowledge areas of genuine controversy. For example, should all sexual assault be equated with rape? Of course, a man should never kiss a woman who does not want to be kissed, but if there was a genuine miscalibration, is it equivalent to rape? If there is any alcohol involved, even small amounts by both parties, is it always rape? Some have even suggested a "consent ladder" in which every step of rising physical intimacy must have explicit verbal consent. If someone did not follow those rules, and it is, honestly, hard to imagine such a ladder would be followed more than in a negligible number of cases, is it rape? It could be. Is it necessarily?
Finally, I felt Bates too readily dismissed the harm feminists have done to themselves through the issues they emphasize and how dismissive many, indeed, are of men. For example, "no uterus, no opinion" dismisses the possibility of people reasoning soundly through facts and logic whether they have a uterus or not. It also ignores the fact that this is not just philosophers dreaming up an ideal mind that does not operate in practice: statistics show very little difference in support for abortion between men and women. This is consistent with men, indeed, being able to empathize.
Conclusion
Bates's book provides a good overview of the manosphere. There are, indeed, many miscreants in it who we are right to be concerned about. An alarming number are, indeed, clearly exceeding even the very narrow limits of free speech the Supreme Court ruled on in Brandenburg versus Ohio. Overall, the manosphere is a cause for concern, and, unfortunately, some of its ideas do seem to be finding their way into the far right, which, for example, in the case of Christian Nationalism, is starting to bleed into the edges of Trumpism.
On the downside, I found that Bates did not always present legitimate controversies fairly. For example, should movements rightly fall under the definition of terrorism in the absence of any formal command or organized planning of attacks? There is a robust case to be made that they should, but Bates did not even present the objections. Presenting them and then dismissing them would, for example, have been a better approach.