Of Vice and Men: an Ethnographic Content Analysis of the Manosphere
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Of Vice and Men: An Ethnographic Content Analysis of the Manosphere by Ryan Coulling A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2019 Ryan Coulling ii Abstract The manosphere is an online network of websites, blogs, forums, and YouTube videos. This informal association of websites are united in their rejection of feminism and often promote misogyny. Locally, each website plays an important role by providing a space for an iteration of masculinity to form. Globally, the manosphere provides an infrastructure for masculinities to organize in a process of construction and sunder. Using an ethnographic content analysis, I examine the masculinities on seven of the most extreme, vehemently misogynistic websites on the manosphere and, as a foil, one ostensibly progressive website that discusses men and masculinity. Though each website espouses a unique masculinity as ideal—including, for example, a Christian masculinity, a “sovereign” masculinity that sees men going their own way (MGTOW), and men’s rights activists (MRA)—I document how the men on these websites are reacting and acting to maintain and expand their power. I find that the power these men cling to is not just gendered, patriarchal power. Rather, the hegemonic ideal was a white, heterosexual masculinity (WHECM) that included evangelical Christian and colonial- capitalist lines of force that leverage eugenics’ notions of family. WHECMs often expressed their masculinity in sexist and misogynistic ways, their sexuality in homophobic and transphobic ways, and their whiteness in racist and anti-Semitic ways. Further, WHECMs anointed themselves as supreme by thinking that their race, gender, and sexuality reflect the sacrifice and sacredness of Christ, situate themselves as purveyors of Truth, or both. iii I develop a conceptual model to explain the emotional backlash that WHECMs release in response to the denigration of their exaltation and the subsequent loss of patriarchal, racial, and heteronormative dividends. WHECMs’ backlash begins as paranoia, in which they concoct narratives that they are under attack by an elite who are weaponizing identity politics. Under a perceived attack, men on the manosphere backlash through an emotional border work that segregates WHECMs via emotional exclusion of Others and emotionally incarcerating men within racist, misogynistic, and homophobic walls. The emotional erection and reinforcement of borders makes the Other proximate and causes reactions of discomfort for WHECMs. This discomfort is then read as an attack, which increases their paranoia, making the paranoia–border work–discomfort system recursive. I explicate five strategic actions WHECMs on the manosphere advocate to reclaim, maintain, and expand their power. WHECMs encourage propagating the white race with pliant white women who hold the white man in esteem. WHECMs encourage a democratic consumption that includes boycotting companies and culture that champion progressive ideals. WHECMs advocate for trolling marginalized people and using racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynist memes. Viewed as under attack in a racial holy war (RAHOWA), WHECMs also promote violence and killing. Finally, WHECMs withdraw. Sometimes this takes the form of distancing and dissociation to assuage their complicity. Other times withdrawal takes the form of abandonment of responsibilities within society. iv Acknowledgements If, by some miracle, you have stumbled upon this dissertation, you are likely to have noticed my lone name as the author. The truth, however, is that this dissertation represents the contributions and sacrifices of a great number of people. The contributions from these kind, generous, and brilliant people made this dissertation better. I am grateful and indebted. Any inadequacies and failings within these pages are solely my fault. I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Michael Mopas, for his guidance and patience through each stage of my PhD program. I left every meeting we had clearer about the road ahead and enthused to follow it. I am equally indebted to my committee. Dr. Alexis Shotwell’s brilliance and generosity was always generative. This dissertation likely would not have been written if not for the myriad ways she helped shaped my feminism. Dr. Dale Spencer’s guidance stretches back before my PhD journey. He has inspired my theoretic and analytic thinking, but his influence extended to include helping a Masters student decide where to do his PhD. I am grateful to have found the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Carleton University. It is a collegial department second to none. The faculty, staff, and graduate student community actively work to build each other up. I can think of no better environment in which to undertake the journey of a PhD. This was environment was further enriched by a supportive and brilliant cohort. Samantha McAleese, Valerie Stam, Rhys Steckle, Alex Castleton, Deirdre McDonald, and Lauren Montgomery, you are each an inspiration. I am grateful I got to learn from each of you. I wish to especially thank the staff in the department. I was fortunate enough to have benefited from the generosity of Paula Whissell, Kim Mitchell, Darlene Moss, v Patricia Lacroix, Marlene Brancato, Kimberley Séguin, Karen Tucker, Stephanie LeBlanc, and Cristina Becerra. Over and above all of the ways they helped to steer this lost graduate student, this is a group that cared so much for the graduate students. This care was exemplified by their efforts to organize a food pantry so that we might have access to cheap, nutritious food on campus. I would like to thank Dr. Morgan Rooney for his pedagogical support and guidance. I would also like to thank Drs. Xioabei Chen, Jen Pylypa, and Bernhard Leistle for their trust and leadership with the TA Mentor program. I am grateful for the lessons I learned while TAing for incredible professors: Dr. Tamy Superle, Christian Pasiak, and Dr. Tonya Davidson. I gratefully acknowledge the funding received towards my PhD from the Social Science and Humanities Council. Throughout my PhD program, I maintained contact with Dr. Lance Roberts at the University of Manitoba. When I was back in Winnipeg, we would frequently get together to catch up. I am saddened to have learned of his passing, but I am grateful for his mentorship and his friendship. Finally, I wish to acknowledge that this dissertation is not only mine. It is also my family’s. The words contained within this dissertation are a product of their love, sacrifice, and support. They of course made material sacrifices. I do not wish to gloss over these. But I want to explicitly thank them and express my love to Tamara, Adrianna, and Martha. As I waded through the vitriol and hate that I found in the fieldsites I studied, they were anchors to a world of love. I would not have been able to make it to the end of this journey if not for them. They inspire me. vi I am grateful to my father and sister who never asked “When will you be done?” They just loved and supported me. And a final thanks to my mother who, despite passing away, was with me throughout this journey. vii Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ X CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 MISOGYNY ONLINE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 MASCULINITIES ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Beyond Categories of Masculinity ................................................................................................................................ 9 ASSEMBLAGE THEORY ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 The manosphere.com ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Goodmenproject.com ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 MGTOW.com ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Time frame