Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

You Talk Like a Retard


What is it about the Internet that makes people talk like autistic parrots?

I was the guy who claimed that 2013 would be the Year the Manosphere Broke, but even then, I wasn’t willing to turn my back on the whole thing. Until now. You can tell when a culture has passed its apogee when it’s invaded by dweebazoids who can’t express an idea without using some private language of chirps and caws that is incomprehensible to the outside observer. We made fun of the seduction community for inventing a dorky argot of “HB8s,” “neg hits” and “DHVs,” only to let people in who made up an equally retarded language of their own.

It’s a good goddamn thing I was around before the manosphere even existed, because if I came across it today, I’d be like “Who the fuck ARE these weirdos?”

Here are some phrases and terms that you losers need to stop using.

1. Hypergamy.

This is the godfather of them all. A clinical term that F. Roger Devlin used for a series of scholarly essays has become a rallying cry for every permavirgin in America. “Women are amoral hypergamous sluts! Poor me!”

You wonder whether these “men” have ever left the house in their entire lives.

Here’s the layman’s definition of hypergamy: women like guys who have something going on. Cool guys. Rich guys. Handsome guys. Charismatic guys. That’s it. If you have two functioning eyes and an IQ higher than room temperature, you should be able to observe this on your own. Why do loser guitarists in crappy local bands have groupies? Why do dutiful high-IQ cubicle nerds have trouble getting a date? Because the former has something going on and the latter doesn’t. There’s absolutely no reason to use spergtalk like “hypergamy” in casual conversation because it a) muddies the rhetorical waters and b) makes you look like a complete doofus.

2. Solipsism.

I claim responsibility for this, seeing as I wrote “The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind,” the essay that inserted this concept into the manosphere’s lexicon. Thing is, when I wrote that four years ago, I wasn’t expecting every Aspie from here to Budapest to turn my ideas into an idiotic Big Lebowski-style call-and-response. “Women are solipsistic and think everything is all about THEM! *sniffle*”

Let me clear up some things about that essay.

For starters, the title of that article was a rhetorical flourish. It was a reference to Eloisa and Abelard, a poem by Alexander Pope, mainly the line “eternal sunshine of the spotless mind” (also the title of a crappy Jim Carrey movie). Read the poem if you want to get the hidden double meaning, though if you morons ever read anything aside from Dalrock and Heartiste, you wouldn’t be crying on blog comment sections about how you can’t get laid.

Secondly, following from that point, women are not eternally doomed to be solipsistic. The point I was making was that while yes, women are more inclined to be solipsistic and yes, modern society has encouraged this deficiency to the point where it’s causing all kinds of problems, it is possible for girls to overcome their navel-gazing tendencies and understand men. More to the point, the kinds of men who screech about girls being “solipsistic” are the last ones who should be doing so. They’re the same jerkoffs who debate about the “best type” of body to attract girls (spoiler alert: don’t be fat or too skinny), agonize over how to pass shit tests, and waste their time with other dweeby bullshit.

A guy who hasn’t gotten stuck his dick in a girl since the Clinton administration has no right to criticize them for anything.

As the good book might put it, take the twelve-foot boner out of your eye before you criticize the lotsa cocka in an urban slut machine’s vagina. Patriarchy isn’t rule of the losers, it’s the rule of men, and merely having a shriveled olive between your legs doesn’t make you a man.

3. N-count.

This is the newest addition to the manospambot’s vocabulary, and by far the dumbest. “N-count” is the number of dicks a girl has hopped on. That’s what the “N” stands for: “number.”


Are you people such fucking dorks that you can’t just call a girl a slut? You have to turn everything into some kind of idiotic calculus problem?

Here’s a brain-twister for you spazzes: has a girl slept with more than three guys? If yes, she’s a slut. No stupid acronyms needed. Maybe if you spent less time debating the ideal girl’s “N-count” on other peoples’ blogs, you could actually get a girl to let you pee in her butt for once.

4. Delta, gamma, sigma (or any Greek letter designation outside of alpha/beta/omega).

This is the most retarded of them all. Heartiste/Roissy was responsible for popularizing the alpha/beta/omega terminology, but it’s pretty obvious (obvious if you have a triple-digit IQ and can talk to another human being without yellowing your briefs) that he meant it as a loose, informal description of masculine behavior and not as a formalized hierarchy that you’re supposed to integrate with your identity. “Hi, I’m Joe, and I’m a Sigma Male.”

I blame Vox Day for this. He’s a great fantasy writer and a brilliant polemicist, but his expanded Greek letter hierarchy is the dumbest shit that ever was. It was he wrote out the idiotic lengthy descriptions of “delta,” “beta,” “gamma” and a bunch of other overly specialized designations. And of course, befitting his egotism, he had to create a whole category just for himself, special little snowflake that he is.

Now we have every dateless dork running around like they’re in an all-night LARPing session: “My level 16 Delta smites your level 8 Gamma with the Cock of Infinite Squirting! Roll dice, bitches!”

There’s a reason why the alpha/beta/omega dichotomy became popular: because it was simple and elegant. Because it wasn’t meant to be a goddamn pissing contest for loveless basement dwellers. It’s very easy to remember:

  • Alpha male: inherently attractive to women.
  • Beta male: neither inherently attractive/repulsive to women.
  • Omega male: inherently repulsive to women.

That’s it. It’s a system to use when you want to analyze male behavior towards women in a way that is easy for outsiders to comprehend. It’s not something you’re supposed to crow about, a plaque to put up on your wall, or a vanity plate for your crappy 1996 Camry.

The best part of all this? The whole purpose of this corner of the Internet is to help you improve your lives. To help you get laid, get style, get a life, get cool. You have everything you need to become the man you want to be, and you choose to piss your life away jacking off over “Red Queen sexual arms races” and sniffling for approval on groupie blogs.

You’re all a goddamn disgrace.

Now do the world a favor and choke.

Read Next: Diary of a Manospambot

  • Phero

    Fuck that was a funny read…albeit good points.
    Remember the old fashioned ranking?

    Most women will want to fuck you:

  • Fuck yeah

  • I agree, for the most part. I feel like a lot of guys have gotten caught up with being pissy. Which is really off putting if you aren’t also pissy.

    However, three guys over a lifetime does not a slut make. Unless their dicks are bigger than mine. Then she’s a slut after the first one.

  • I’ve said for years those words have to go. They’re embarrassing, I never use them, and they sound more like the private language of some bizarre religious cult.

  • MattyIce

    Hahahahahahaha! Spot on!

  • The Man Who Was . . .

    Fuck, I hate Vox Day’s system.

    All you need to know is that there a scale for male social status and Alpha-Beta-Omega is short hand for that.

    And there is a scale for male sexual attractivenessand Alpha-Beta-Omega is short hand for that too.

    This creates a bit of confusion as the two scales are not quite identical, but interact in interesting ways. All else being equal, having high social status helps make you more sexually attractive, but paradoxically being sexually attractive also helps make you higher in social status, again all else being equal. That’s about it.

  • The Man Who Was . . .

    Here’s the layman’s definition of hypergamy: women like guys who have something going on.

    I don’t think that’s quite it. Hypergamy is women chasing after the same few top guys.

  • I’ve been here since ’07, and I still don’t know what an HB8 is. And I don’t want to.

    I should get off my ass and write a post denouncing the “Dark Triad”.

  • ray

    The parroting is tedious, as is the complaining by twenties-guys that chicks dont dig them. (Hint: you have to grow up and DO SOMETHING first.)

    But “retards” and “autistics”? Obviously that’s your own insecurity and spite showing, there, Mr. Internet Presence.

    Study your topic BEFORE you write. Autistics don’t speak in caws and chirps. The retards you disparage generally either speak a stripped-down, but quite intelligible form of English, or they don’t speak at all. There is no secret-decoder chipmunk language in use by them, so it’s hard to figure what you are referring to … unless, again, it’s just an expression of your own inadequacies.

    Doubtless, by self-comparison to those ridiculous retards, the marvellous Matthew Forney, Internet Great, comes off as even more marvellous than he already is, in the vastness of his own mind.

    The only autistic kid i know really well cant speak, but also has no secret code of caws and chirps by which he communicates. Not having your advantages, he has had to learn to use his entire enviornment to communicate, which he does bravely and brilliantly.

    By age eight, the Little Retard had already accomplished more than the Great Matt Forney will in his lifetime. By that point, he was also far more intelligent that the Great Matt Forney will ever be.

    Being a wisemouth asshole brings attention to your website, I get that. But try to keep your writhing insecurities in check. What’s next? An article about how midgets are towered over by the treelike Matt Forney? Three-point contest with a blind guy? The opportunites are endless, and I’m sure you will find them.

  • “What is it about the Internet that makes people talk like autistic parrots?”

    How does an autistic parrot talk? I’ve been diagnosed as autistic; do I speak in “chirps and caws?”

    Matt, you failed to properly explain hypergamy. One key usage is a woman’s tendency to trade up from a beta to an alpha when her flow ceases. That beta has something going on–she bonded to him. However, an alpha has more going on and some other alphas have even more, ad nauseam.

  • Paul Moore

    As a newcomer to this corner of the web, I have often been mystified by the jargon and abbreviations that seem to crop up everywhere. We shouldn’t have to learn a new language to speak to each other. But I’m an old guy, and just barely found out what roflamao means.

  • Phero

    The “something going on” is not just one thing or one dimensional.
    It’s many factors.
    Yes the chase the top guys, but they are top because they have something.
    Top 5% in good looks.
    Top 5% in lifestyle
    Top 5% in earnings
    Top 5% in your professional field
    Top 5% in your artistic field
    Top 5% in dick size

  • bauztistic

    BREAKING: pot meets kettle, can identify it only as “black”

  • Man. Matt, you really annoyed some Spergs.

    Ray — I think Matt’s point, and I don’t pretend to speak for him, is that there is a serious undercurrent of (possibly self-diagnosed) Apserger’s in some of the Manosphere. Specifically, the social retardation aspects. I agree — and I’m a huge supporter of the idea of a Manosphere and Men’s Rights.

    There are just a lot of misogynists out there who are basically mad that their dicks are dry (save their lotion and/or soap applications). Even Athol at MMSL had to take to task guys who were basically pathetic enough that their wives wanted to leave and whining about it.

    We’re men. Instead of bitching that someone doesn’t like us, we are supposed to improve ourselves. Matt is complaining about something, here, but he doesn’t come across as a butthurt wimp — he’s just sick of the same old pathetic whining. It’s not appealing.

    I like Vox well enough (when he’s not blaming shit on the Jews), but the RPG classification of men is just ridiculous.

    You’re either good enough to get the pussy you want, or you aren’t.
    You’re either good enough to achieve your social goals, or you aren’t.

    If you aren’t, whining about it isn’t going to help. I don’t like whiners. Most men don’t like whining. Women don’t get tingles over whiners.

    Making up an RPG system doesn’t help.

  • IamMarktoo

    If your podcast were like this I’d listen to them.

  • Pingback: Matt Forney’s shot across the bow.()

  • Pingback: Pick-Up Artists and the Nature of Women | tba.()

  • baguazhang


    What are you, some kind of autist? He’s obviously not using the words in the clinical sense, quit being so retarded.

    Anyway, I still don’t see what the problem with hypergamy is. Sounds like a bunch of old men complaining. The real problem with feminism is ideological. Telling people men and women are equal, gender is a social construct, and all that horseshit. That needs to be dealt with first. “Game” is secondary.

  • Apollo

    I actually think Hypergamy is a really useful concept and should be used as a foundation for a mans understanding of the way women think. Id define it differently from you though, as “women want a man thats better than them, and they always want the best man they can possibly get”. Thats more relevant and useful than your definition, which is so obvious as to be pointless, and I can understand why you think the term needs to go if thats what it means to you.

    I wasn’t aware solipsism was a widely used concept in the Manosphere. Your article (and I do remember the title from when it was first published) is the only time I can recall it being mentioned. Maybe Im not reading as many whiny Manosphere comment sections as you, which from my perspective can only be seen as a good thing.

    As for the greek letter thing, Id go further, and say that Alpha and Beta have to go too, because even as simple and straightforward as you claim they are, their use in any sort of nuanced context still generates arguments about what each word “really” means. Alpha and Beta have basically become Manosphere equivalents of “good” and “bad”, in that those are basically the only concepts you can be sure they represent, because thats all anyone agrees on and the other specifics of the definition differ from person to person. Its a short step from here to parody. The Feminists and other assorted man haters and malcontents already use the terms in mockery, so it may not be too much longer before someone whose opinion is actually relevant notices how ridiculous these terms are.

  • Thank you.
    Something I NEVER got when these supposed “Alphas” that are out slamming “solid 9s” every night talk about hypergamy is how they missed the main drivers behind a woman’s sexuality:
    1: Physical attractiveness. If you’re masculine and non-deformed, you have women’s attention. It works kind of like a girl in her early 20s with an hourglass shape does for men. It isn’t the be-all-and-end-all, but it turns heads.
    2: Social pressures. A woman won’t date a man with long hair if her group views it as “bad”. Even if he’s otherwise handsome and clearly alpha. She may have sex with him, but she won’t date him unless the group approves. If she turns a handsome, alpha doctor down for a less attractive, social outcast welfare recipient that’s not hypergamy. That’s her responding to either the “bad boy” social education (women should grow out of it after age 16, but most modern humans are infantilized), or her responding to her friends’ social pressure to NOT date a better man than they have.

    The increasingly prevalent idea that all there is to female sexuality is hypergamy is born of things.
    1: Betas who won’t accept that they’re beta or try and improve. A woman won’t “mate up” from an attractive, loyal, resource-rich alpha unless she was just using him for sex or money to begin with.
    2: Absolutist Freudian psychology. Need I elaborate?
    3: Complete ignorance about how women function. Women are typically social animals. That one sentence explains everything about female sexual behaviour (including the asocial exceptions, like myself) far better than “hypergamy” does. Anyone who has interacted enough with women will notice this very quickly.

    I don’t like to do the typical “woman refuting a man/men online” thing of saying they’re all basement dwellers who have far worse access to women than they claim/imagine, but what other answer is there?

    [And yes, in terms of sexuality there are just three types of men. In sociological terms you can expand them (after all, some men are natural Alphas that reject leadership and work on being independent and some men are social outcasts continually trying to integrate), but in terms of women, there are the top guys, the average joes and the repulsive. Being an asocial Alpha should not be an excuse for a lack of sex. Maybe a lack of long-term relationships, because social behaviours are a main driver of female sexuality, but I digress: asocial Alphas are just as sexually attractive as sociable ones and, when they want it or need it, will get sex.]

  • AnonymousBosch

    I’ll admit I’ve simply drifted away from the ‘sphere, bar a few of the better blogs from the switched-on guys. The fringe element seems to be taking over, particularly in the comments, and I’m starting to see abnormal psychology like paranoia, persecution complexes, conspiracy theories and rationalised schizoid existences (MGTOW) becoming first normalised, then repeated as dogma.

    I just suspect people are bitching and feeling sorry for themselves and their lot, rather than simply:

    Lifting weights.
    Working towards goals.
    Making their lives interesting.
    Being fun to be around.

    I don’t understand the obsession with Feminism. Beautiful, feminine women are everywhere, and I say that living in an obese nation. No-one is forcing us to stick our dicks into the short hair / everything’s rapey / narcissist set. A woman with realistic, achievable goals, self-control, discipline and dedication will always be receptive to a conversation with a man with the same. Simply be that man.

  • Phero

    You obviously dont date women and have no idea about it. Back to the horoscope.

  • ho

    Dude, hate to break it to you, but you fucked up.

    This entire post was about how you seek to distinguish yourself from the rest of the bunch. You did that by looking at meaningless trifles and asserting “BUT I’M BETTER THAN THOSE LOSERS HURRR”. Newsflash: you aren’t. You’re a wannabe jock who looks for opportunities to show the world just how coolerer you are than the rest.

    It’s especially mindboggling to mention solipsism here. Ignoring the shaming language, solipsism is a genius concept. There is absolutely nothing that explains a significant part of women’s behaviour better. I actually had my girlfriend suffer a minor crisis because she read Roissy writing about how girls like her are bad bets for relationships. She had mild disdain for the rest of his posts, but completely flew off the handle for that one. Oh well.

    In summary, despite your contributions, you’re a wart. It wouldn’t be a very big exaggaration to claim that you agree with almost everything “those MRA pussies” yet for some strange reason (narcissism of small differences perhaps?) you shit on them for “crying about solipsistic cunts”. I believe this is classic feminazi boilerplate, to frame disdain as “whining”.

    Oh and btw, Vox’ gamma category DEFINITELY makes sense. There are people who are neither complete dregs nor well adjusted cogs who have a “normal” attitude towards women. (think Anil Dash or John Scalzi)

  • monster221

    dude couldnt have said it better myself. “hypergamy” ugh. my favorite is when one guy gets upset at another guy for not agreeing on “theory” and they have a comment battle about who is “beta”. god i outright REFUSE to even use terms like that. even on the rare occasion they are applicable i go out of my way to not say them.

    its gotten to the point i dont even read comments anymore. the few bloggers i do read, i read their shit. 9 out of 10 guys commenting are trying to wear a badass persona online because they dont have one in real life, and/or they have a rage boner about some broad doesnt want to hear them go on and on and on about “mans are victims too”.

    i assume any man throwing around buzzwords or club house lingo or who is constantly bitching about “feminizmz” isnt bettering himself. he is making himself a comfortable hole he can crawl into, rage-fuck the wall, and generally blame his failure to command his own life on people who dont want to fuck him. i have no time to heed a word he has to say.

    oh and my real all time favorite is when the word “harem” is mentioned in an article these motherfuckers will argue and discuss and chime in and “^^ this” about how many fucking broads make up the perfect harem. fuck those assholes they make us normal knowledge seeking self bettering fellas look like a bunch of fucking homos.

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    Sounds as if someone has a new gf and is trying to dial back some of his more controversial statements.

  • @Phero:
    Because knowing what makes women tick and what women do is definitely the same as understanding why.
    And, as a straight woman, I know why men do what they do. Or I know what they do, which is the same thing. Of course, as a straight man you have no idea why you do anything at all and wouldn’t be able to debate it with me, a straight woman. :p

  • Pingback: A Few Words on “Manosphere” | More Right()

  • gilgamesh

    I can see why people like to use “hypergamy.” It encapsulates a wordy concept about women’s biological drives. Would be nice to have an alternative that I could use offline so that everyone knows what the hell I’m talking about (in case someone asks.) Not that I’m ready to explain it to them yet-currently if anyone looked at me they’d figure I’m just sexually frustrated and talking out of my ass.

  • Retrenched

    In a nutshell, hypergamy just means that a woman wants a man who is more ‘manly’ than she is — e.g., taller, stronger, higher social status, wealthier, more ambitious, more confident etc.

    Or to put it another way, a woman wants a real man, and not a timid, subservient little boy in a man’s body.

    Sad that we live in a time when simply being a man and acting male is marketed as a top secret way to get laid….

  • gilgamesh

    well if you grew up like it did it sure as hell seems top secret. I doubt anyone wanted me to learn about it.

  • “In a nutshell, hypergamy just means that a woman wants a man who is more ‘manly’ than she is ”

    You’re not even wrong.

  • Retrenched said: “Sad that we live in a time when simply being a man and acting male is marketed as a top secret way to get laid….”

    Gilgamesh said: well if you grew up like it did it sure as hell seems top secret. I doubt anyone wanted me to learn about it.”

    The women in my family taught me a lot about manhood, since my parents were divorced and I saw dad less than once a year. My grannie taught me “Next!” “Women are like buses. There’ll be a new one along in ten minutes.” Mom taught me to stand and sit straight–project confidence and maximize your height. Mom taught me to smile and demonstrated how to be a dazzling hostess. Grandmother taught me to be socially perceptive. Mom taught me to dance; dancing teaches you to minimize rejection and keep approaching women. Just approaching women puts you ahead of most guys. I picked up by reading that making conversation consists of getting women to talk about themselves and staying a little invested in listening. I found simply by trying that girls wanted to kiss me, especially if I moved my face slowlly close to theirs and maintained eye contact. I read that girls like to be kissed on the face and neck as well as the lips and tried it and it’s true.

  • Joe

    As much as I generally enjoy reading articles in the so-called “manosphere”, I learned fairly quickly that many of these supposed men are overly-sensitive pussies hiding their deep-seeded insecurities behind their jargon and feeling like they’re a part of “the group”. I learned this after posting a comment on Return Of Kings, disagreeing with the article, offering my input from how I approach the subject addressed in the article.

    Long story short, I’ve been banned from commenting ever since.

  • Goodness, why??

    First, the overuse/abuse of these terms is, in my opinion, a necessary though regrettable phase of an idea becoming accepted as a mainstream though process.

    Though it is distressing to see some terminology that was once correctly used now being thrown around recklessly like a one-liner from Seinfeld, I am not so discouraged as you are.

    Given the long distance that men have yet to go in order to right the societal ship, I am more accepting of planting roots anywhere, even if they are suboptimal.

    At this point in time, I prefer ubiquity to purity. Achieving critical mass of manospheric content is probably more beneficial, since ubiquity is harder to stamp out than a tiny crop of pure thinking.

    Look no further than the metastasizing methods of feminism; they were never worried about logic, the correct use of terms, internally consistent arguments, etc. And look at how far they moved the ball down the field.

    Your mistake, Matt, is assuming that even a minority of people have your capacity to appreciate well formed rhetoric, let alone create it. Orwell summed it up well in Animal Farm with the “four legs good, two legs bad” chant of the idiot sheep.

    Listen, if dressing up in a gorilla suit and playing the tuba on a street corner would turn men away from feminism and white knighting, I would be starting at tuba camp tomorrow.

    Distasteful as it may be to us, we may have to accept that the blunt instruments of triteness and illogic may be the only way to succeed.

    Also, consider the beautiful effect that distractions have. The clownish overuse of PUA terminology may help keep some of the more easily distracted of our opponents busy writing indictments of ridicule. But they cannot be everywhere at once, can they?

    So, why try for purity and reason when the world has never really cared for those things in the first place? From the standpoint of survival, would you rather be an orchid or a weed?

    I don’t care how or why, or to even what depth manospheric terms and truth are distributed, as long as their reach is growing.

    I consider this spreading of these concepts as a sort of firm pavement that can later be built upon once these terms and concepts have achieved some threshold of universal acceptance.

  • Goodness, why??

    Re: Solipsism.

    MF did for “solipsism” what Roissy did for “hamster” and “carousel”

  • @Retrenched
    “Sad that we live in a time when simply being a man and acting male is marketed as a top secret way to get laid….”

    Considering the way culture craps on masculinity. This is unfortunately how males nowadays discover masculinity.

  • Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/03/05 | Free Northerner()

  • Pingback: A skeptical look at the Manosphere | The Prussian()

  • Guest

    I would add “Cognitive Dissonance” to the list

  • Pingback: Manosphere Rage | Il Risorgimento()

  • Alexander Thompson

    Can you take down the title pic? Seriously.

    My brother has down syndrome and if someone used one of his special Olympics photos or graduation photos like that I’d be dam pissed. All SJW aside, it’s not right to use those kids for memes.

  • I suggest a picture of Ian Miles Cheong in its place.

  • Pingback: 9 Signs She’s A Cheater()

  • Nishnat Biswas

    good article.I will just add a point. human society is too complex to describe it as alpha/beta and omega. its not just sexual. the social context is much more important than sexual part. sigma, delta and gamma gives some meaning to the demarcation. a five star military general is a beta male. according to roissy, he is same as a accountant working in small private firm for 30 years, because both r betas. but according to vox, the accountant is a delta.