
The New Man of 4chan - pron
http://thebaffler.com/salvos/new-man-4chan-nagle
======
sevenless
What was this article really about? Was it more than "I'd like 3000 words on
4chan and toxic masculinity by Friday, please"?

There are some baffling omissions. The MRA movement/MGTOW? Gamergate? It just
reads as though the writer hasn't much familiarity with the subculture.

~~~
Chris2048
Those omissions would confound things. While some MRAs talk about 'betas', not
so many advocate explicit violence or 'uprisings'. And Gamer-Gate is another
thing entirely - mentioning it would be explicit stereotyping.

~~~
CM30
Yeah, GamerGate is... well to be honest, I don't think anyone supporting or
opposing it really knows what it is nowadays, since it's become a catch all
term for:

Anyone a journalist or media figure or opposer doesn't like/thinks is being a
jerk on the internet.

Those who oppose corruption in gaming journalism.

Those who don't like 'SJW' types trying to censor things or complaining about
privilege.

Certain groups of trolls who want to dox people they find stupid or strange,
and need a justification for it.

People who oppose various changes made to localised video games.

Conservatives who think gaming and the media has become too liberal.

People who want to become internet celebrities off the controversy.

Many, many gaming websites and Youtube channels that support some parts but
not others.

Basically, it's more divided and semi diverse than the rebel groups in Monty
Python's Life of Brian.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-
us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us)

Either way, it's split across so many websites and seemingly encompasses so
many radom groups that it's really all that associated with chan culture any
more.

------
NaliSauce
Wait - there are people who take stuff posted on tumblr and 4chan seriously?

I purely visit those two places for entertainment. Sure it's a bit repetitive,
but the sheer absurdity makes me laugh and that's good enough for me.

~~~
nickthemagicman
This was my reaction. It was like someone writing a 3000 word article on
"Sociocultural analysis of Gender models relating to HOW the chicken ACTUALLY
crossed the road."

~~~
pron
If a chicken were to go on a murderous rampage (or even orchestrate a campaign
that intimidates -- with threats of death, rape and mutilation -- women into
withdrawing from online presence) I think such an article might be justified.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Hilarious that you blame 4chan. There's hundreds of millions of pageviews
every month. Might as well blame AMERICA for school shooters or Islam for
terrorists.

Your gut based fear response is uneducated. If you educate yourself your fear
will diminish. I promise.

~~~
pron
I don't blame 4chan at all, and neither does the author (who, BTW, doesn't
talk about "4chan" but about one specific board). Hilarious that you read it
this way. But when writing a piece of cultural criticism, it's important to
categorize social groups based on cultural narratives (or currents), and the
narratives on that 4chan board overlap with those found in the murderers'
manifestos and intimidation campaigns. That within every narrative-group some
people take things much, much further than others goes without saying. It also
goes without saying that discussion groups -- online or off -- are better
indicators of the "mainstream" of the groups they represent rather than the
most extreme (people who end up behaving violently often eschew gatherings),
and most certainly cannot be blamed for violent action. Nevertheless, all
sorts of ideological violence are associated with some non-violent ideological
groups in some way, and it is disingenuous to claim that there is no cultural
association whatsoever between those anti-women rampages and certain online
communities.

------
zethraeus
I'm impressed. This is possibly the only article I've seen about 4chan whose
author actually understands enough about the discussed subcultures to make
interesting analyses.

~~~
justabystander
> only article ... whose author actually understands enough about the
> discussed subcultures

I was thinking that at first, too, until I noticed that the author completely
missed the fact that calling someone a "beta" male is not a positive thing. I
mean, she _alludes_ to it, but then takes it all literally. Referring to one's
self as beta is generally a self-deprecating statement or a mark of self-
resignation. Betas just take whatever they're given. Calling someone "beta" is
actually a common insult to many of the sub-cultures that she sweeps together.
It's the recognition that someone else is in control.

You have to actually look at it from their perspective to get it. These are
outcasts. They want to be at the top, but they don't want to be like the
people who mistreat them because they despise them and their behavior.
Instead, many of them idolize the sigma and omega types - the types who stand
outside (or hide within) the hierarchy and still remain confident and
powerful. The chans idolize the rebels and the masterminds, not the jocks and
the bootlickers.

The fact that she can't catch the mockery in all the beta commentary speaks to
the fact that she really doesn't understand this culture at all. She may have
done some research, but apparently the black humor that pervades the dark
corners of the internet escapes her.

~~~
pron
> the author completely missed the fact that calling someone a "beta" male is
> not a positive thing. I mean, she alludes to it, but then takes it all
> literally. Referring to one's self as beta is generally a self-deprecating
> statement or a mark of self-resignation.

Except she says exactly that:

 _The term “beta” ... is an ironic inversion of the fabled swagger of the
alpha male._

 _“beta male” is a common term of identification, one of both belonging and
self-mockery._

> These are outcasts. They want to be at the top, but they don't want to be
> like the people who mistreat them because they despise them and their
> behavior. Instead, many of them idolize the sigma and omega types - the
> types who stand outside (or hide within) the hierarchy and still remain
> confident and powerful. The chans idolize the rebels and the masterminds,
> not the jocks and the bootlickers.

She says exactly that, too:

 _Whereas alphas tend to be macho, sporty, and mainstream in their tastes,
betas see themselves as less dominant males, withdrawn, obsessional, and
curatorial in their cultural habits._

 _But how, exactly, does “hegemonic masculinity” accurately sum up a scene
explicitly identifying as beta male? And can “traditional ideas about gender”
really be bursting forth from an Internet culture that also features gender-
bending pornography, discussions about bisexual curiosity, and a male My
Little Pony fandom?_

 _In fact, a great deal about the beta-male rebellion runs counter to theories
of masculinity advanced by scholars like R. W. Connell and Michael Kimmel. In
her 2005 book Masculinities, Connell lists the words “nerd” and “geek” among
the terms that stigmatize marginal masculinities. The beta style draws from a
countercultural genealogy and identifies itself against feminism but also
against social conservatism, political correctness, mainstream consumer
culture, and most important, against hegemonic masculinity itself._

 _As one patiently surveys the varieties of online expression favored by beta
males, it becomes apparent that, in addition to their all too palpable sense
of self-loathing, they’re further actuated by a pronounced sort of class
contempt. One key source of their rage—against both the sexual pecking order
and society at large—is that their own sense of superiority over the masses,
the unspecial “normies,” is not reflected back to them by others in real
life._

> The fact that she can't catch the mockery in all the beta commentary speaks
> to the fact that she really doesn't understand this culture at all. She may
> have done some research, but apparently the black humor that pervades the
> dark corners of the internet escapes her.

Except that it does not escape her, as she says:

 _The casual racism embedded in this geeky beta world comes wrapped in several
layers of self-protective irony_

 _Commentators like Coleman have lent a certain credibility to the beta
uprising’s contention that its motives are misinterpreted by a public that
fails to grasp its unique brand of postmodern wit. Some people, they say,
simply “don’t get” that the betas are in it strictly “for the lulz.”_

~~~
justabystander
So, let's pull the sections from your own quote that you missed.

> But how, exactly, does “hegemonic masculinity” accurately sum up a scene
> explicitly identifying as beta male

Here she says that they're _explicitly identifying_ as beta males, when nearly
every culture she referenced rejects and mocks it.

Also

> this geeky beta world

> The beta style draws from

> Among the stale memes, repeat posts, true-life confessions, pre-rampage tip-
> offs, and cock-and-bull stories that make beta forums so impenetrable

The phrase "beta rebellion" is in the article eight times. She is literally
basing this entire article on betas, when the groups mentioned inside don't
think very much of betas at all. If you're not seeing that, you're projecting
an awful lot onto this article. Not only that, her understanding of betas is
faulty.

> Whereas alphas tend to be macho, sporty, and mainstream in their tastes,
> betas see themselves as less dominant males, withdrawn, obsessional, and
> curatorial in their cultural habits.

She's conflating introversion with beta, when they're both orthogonal
attributes. And she's claiming this is where the internet misogyny comes from.
Betas are perceived as being afraid to speak controversial opinions or in
other ways step out of line (they're followers, remember?), and also as people
that will say the most pleasing things in order to get attention. _None_ of
which lines up with the forums and sub-cultures she's describing. Betas may
pop on the internet and try to be tough, but it's usually just them RPing some
sort of fantasy. They might talk down on people who reject them, but there's
nothing they resent more than their inability to change things.

> the betas are in it strictly “for the lulz.”

Here she's claiming that the burn the world down for fun behavior of the chans
is _beta_ behavior. She started this whole article with mass shootings,
transitions into betas, makes a link with online forums as if the internet is
breeding them. In reality, the problems behind people who make IRL attacks
don't start in internet forums. The callous spite for anything and everything
certainly doesn't help fix them. But the chans talk about these people as beta
to mock their weakness. In their minds, they literally didn't have enough guts
to do anything about their problems in real life until they snapped.

In summary, no, she doesn't understand the people or the ideas at all. She
just cherry-picked words and did some meme research for authenticity. And then
she grabbed the biggest brush she could buy to paint everyone the same color.

~~~
pron
First of all, this is a rather short, non-academic article, not a book, so
some generalizations (and catch-phrases) are necessary in order to state any
thesis at all. Second, I think you're fixating too much on your disagreement
with the author on the use of the word betas. You think she's misusing it and
applying it to a different group? Fine. I don't see how her thesis is affected
by (what you believe to be) incorrect labeling (I agree with her, BTW[1]).

Broad strokes and catchphrases necessitated by the medium aside[2], I think
this is the best article on internet culture I've read in quite some time.

[1]: I think that she (correctly) applies the label as they (or some of them)
self-deprecatingly call themselves (in opposition to the jock alphas), rather
than as an objective description of "weak(er) followers". She stresses over
and over that they don't view themselves as followers regardless of their
self-applied label.

[2]: And those limitations are very clear to readers of a high-end magazine
like the Baffler.

------
Archio
There are two important points I think the author of this article doesn't
really understand.

1\. "4chan" is not a person, a club, a worldview, or even a reputation-based
comment aggregator. 4chan is website with a constant, ephemeral stream of
anonymous comments, and the "culture" between different boards varies quite
significantly. This system makes it especially prone to misrepresentation by a
media that does not understand it. One could easily write an article entitled
"The New Man of Reddit" about disturbing subreddits that exist with deep
misogynistic hatred, but people understand that one subreddit does not
represent the views of everyone that visits the site as a whole. It is even
easier to portray 20-30 4chan users as representative of hundreds of thousands
because they all post under the same name, "Anonymous". I know several friends
who frequent /g/ (the technology board on 4chan), and the discussion is on
technical topics virtually all of the time.

2\. There are obviously pockets on certain boards (e.g. /r9k/) with groups of
anonymous users that have disturbing thoughts and views. That being said, I
think it is a mistake to frame the problem as a website being "like Uber, but
for violent misogyny", or making a broad analysis that includes references to
decades-long gender dynamics theories. I am NOT defending or endorsing the
actions whatsoever of these users.

However, if the author were to engage in conversation with some of the more
extreme users, she might realize that what many of these people need is help.
If she were to read personal stories threads on /r9k/ she might find that a
large portion of those people are there because they are not "doing well" in
life, at all, and have not "fit in" to society for a very long time. They are
often clinically depressed, or have any number of debilitating mental
illnesses. There are people there that are in poverty, have crippling anxiety
disorders that prevent them from leaving the house, who are addicted to
substances and cannot hold a job, and who have never done so much as held
hands with a romantic interest even decades into adulthood. There are a
disturbing number of people on /r9k/ that were physically and sexually abused
as children, and those stories are excruciatingly sad. I don't exaggerate
about the prevalence or severity of these problems, I have seen regular
popular threads about child abuse and significant social impairment on boards.
Misogyny is often not a calculated tactical hatred on the part of these
people, but an unhealthy and abhorrent outlet for their desperation.

Again, I am not defending their actions and I don't think that those 4chan
boards are positive places for people to seek refuge. But I think it is
important to recognize why many of them are there, and proceed from a point of
compassion for another human being, no matter hard that may be. It is easy and
tempting to demonize a group of individuals that engage in repulsive
misogynistic commentary all day, but that won't solve any of their problems or
those of society.

~~~
speeder
This made me remember of when I visited randomly on internet a anti-feminist
forum.

I noticed there was a trend, where half of the users just wanted a better
world in general, and the other half were extremely violent and hateful... but
that hateful half also had the worst personal stories.

One that I thought was particularly interesting, was of a guy that frequently
parroted that women are evil, that noone should trust women, and so on, one
day in a thread about rape he comments that he was raped, and couldn't get
help at all, and that some years later he got a girlfriend, that ended raping
him too, and this time when he sought help his treatment was even worse.

I think for a person that was mistreated that way, it is easy to conclude that
women are just evil liars and rapists.

The thing is the guy obviously wants help, but he still fails to find it (from
comments in several threads I could pick up that he sought help from police,
psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers... everyone treated him with
hostility, or when they actually belived him, thought it was
hilarious/entertaining what happened to him).

------
jszymborski
> The details that emerged about Harper-Mercer’s online life made it difficult
> not to resort to stereotyping. On a dating site, he had listed pop-culture
> obsessions typical of “beta” shut-ins, including “internet, killing zombies,
> movies, music, reading,” and added that he lived “with parents.”

Movies, music and reading as hobbies? Yup, that's a killer alright. /s

Man, the media hasn't really progressed since 1991 has it...

~~~
lake99
It has. Doom was released in 1993. Video games have been the leading cause of
murders ever since. /s

------
nickthemagicman
It's very small minded of the author implying these role model philosophies
originate and are used in 4chan only.

Reddit has /r/theredpill, there's numerous mens activists, and dating groups
that all use the model of male gender roles and distinctions that the author
has described here.

To me this article is just another subtly disguised insincere 4chan hit piece.
I knew by the opening paragraph when the article implied that 4chan aids and
abets school shooters.

Also, the joke is kind of on people who actually take 4chan seriously.

------
ghyttttgg
Almost didn't touch on /pol/, what a missed opportunity

~~~
brobinson
/pol/ is a board of peace

------
sotrueee
A news article about r9k...

------
Aelinsaar
That was... surreal.

