The Rules of Attraction: An Empirical Critique of Pseudoscientific Theories about Sex in the Manosphere

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to see a bit more contextualization of the Incel phenomenon in two senses. First, what contextual factors might invite Incel men to construct sexuality in market terms? My sense is the prevalence of neoliberal economics and discourses (and the financialization of everyday life) now infiltrate all aspects of public and private life, making it easy for these men to frame their intimate problems in crass market-based terms. Wendy Brown's book In The Ruins of Neoliberalism has a nice discussion of how the unhinged nature of white masculinity in the present is both the product of the crisis of late capitalism and, at the same time, reflects an infusion of capitalist logics into all social relations. Second, the uptake of pseudo science reflects the post-truth environmental of networked media, where consensus reality and basic facts have been render completely subjective. Hence, these men actually think they are scientists, pouring over data from peer reviewed journals and applying it poorly and irresponsibly to justify violent misogyny. In short, the on-line nature of this discourse matters because their conception of erotic capital only makes sense when participants are able to construct their own scientific fantasy worlds that are in no way based on the material reality of gender and sexuality. In short, these theories of evolutionary psychology are (forgive me for being crass) bullshit. They thrive in environments in which truth is relative and expertise is performative or stylistic (truthiness). I think these contexts might help explain why it is that these discourses thrive. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical insights, very useful to improve the clarity and quality of article.

We have tried to follow your suggestions and to rework the text, within the limits of space given by the Journal.

In particular, we totally agreed with you that more contextualization was needed. Therefore, we took into account the suggestion by including references to post-truth, the influence of neoliberalism in social relations and also to the diffusion of postfeminist sensibility.

This theoretical tool and theories were included both in the literature review and in the analysis.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes to build on Van Valkenburgh’s USA research on American men who believe that they have been losers in the dating game and have sought solace in online chat rooms with similar men. What is intriguing about these chat rooms is the construction of an alternative theory of female motivation that makes the “losers’ or beta men in their jargon more appealing to women. It is a classic illustration of ad hoc rationalization. The authors recognize this and want to critique the assumptions embedded in the online folk theory.

This is where for me the confusion comes in  as I am not sure if the authors are critiquing the folk theory or have use the opportunity to criticize evolutionary theory of sex differences which is much more sophiscated than the online folk theory that reads like a crude 1970’s media take on sex differences.

The authors need to better clarify this – what is unpacking the folk theory vs  evolutionary psych theory – see David Buss work and Don Symons human sexuality for where the academic field is at.

The paper should bring in differences between Italian men and American men – or is there no difference ? If possible interviews to understand how and why they hold onto the folk theory would add more richness to the analysis. I suppose this has not been done. I do not see the significance of listing all the online sites without probing the sites. I imagine it documents the breath of the interest but without knowing how many people use the site -it is difficult to know exactly how representative this orientation is.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical insights, very useful to improve the clarity and quality of article.

We have tried to follow your suggestions and to rework the text, within the limits of space given by the Journal.

Below you find a detailed commentary to your reviews.

1) "I am not sure if the authors are critiquing the folk theory or have use the opportunity to criticize evolutionary theory of sex differences which is much more sophiscated than the online folk theory that reads like a crude 1970’s media take on sex differences. The authors need to better clarify this – what is unpacking the folk theory vs  evolutionary psych theory – see David Buss work and Don Symons human sexuality for where the academic field is at."

We had better clarified that our target is to deconstruct the folk use and misinterpretation of scientific theories (sociolobiology and evolutionary psychology included), a typical tendency of the current post-truth society and culture.

2) "The paper should bring in differences between Italian men and American men – or is there no difference?"

We agreed with the referee that it was important to distinguish the global and local context. Therefore, in the conclusions, we made reference to the global dimension of the manosphere as a global network, where the American cultural influence is strong (see the nomenclature: chad vs loser). Moreover, by explaining their lives through universal and ahistorical laws and categories, members of the manosphere give a representation of themselves as independent from the varieties of local contexts. However, we pointed out that some cultural references, such as Aranzulla, are embedded in the local context.

3) "If possible interviews to understand how and why they hold onto the folk theory would add more richness to the analysis. I suppose this has not been done."

Surely other research technique such as interviews would provide a richer material on how people attending the manosphere endorse LMS theory in their everyday life. However, as female researchers in gender studies we would not easily find cooperation and we would be exposed to various risks of harassment. For these reasons, at the moment, we are just conductiong digital ethnographies.

4) "I do not see the significance of listing all the online sites without probing the sites. I imagine it documents the breath of the interest but without knowing how many people use the site -it is difficult to know exactly how representative this orientation is."

We added some quantitative data about the incidence of the phenomena, more specifically on the number of officially registered members (even if the followers actually attending the examined forums may be more) to give an idea of the dimensions of the groups.

The list of the links, instead, is a warrant for the transparency of the evidences analyzed, also useful for the replicability of the study.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

A much improved through clarification paper. The authors note the construction of on line forum for "loser" men who seek solance in solidarity  with fellow suffers - or men who can not or feel they cannot attract the opposite sex. In the process they construct a crude self serving rationale  that restores their sense of dignity through questionable assertions that feel "scientific" to justify their social situation.

In every complex society there is always 10% of males who cannot attract a mate (insufficient funds for bride price, mental problems (unless he is a prince) - I wonder if we are seeing the latest manifestation of this global phemenanon.