 |
| Damn you, accursed temptress! |
Whenever I'm on campus, I'm eyed by the security guards. Not because I'm dangerous, but because I'm MALE.
Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.
Let's stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you've accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you're otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren't going to give you a second look. Either you're lying, or you're imagining things, or you aren't telling us the whole story.
Back to the comment:
What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I'm not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they're HOT.
Uh, ok, that's not actually true. Unless by "a LOT" you mean "a tiny number." But it is an ... interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase "I'm not saying that women are asking to be raped" is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook" was a bad sign.
On with the rest of the comment:
And since I'm not HOT, I'm automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I'm also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.
Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I'm not: a criminal!
Ok. Let's break this down. You "respect women," yet you complain about them "taunt[ing] ... men sexually," and assume that "a LOT" of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You've "NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women," yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you're happy to call feminists "hags," a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.
I don't know. Could it be that women -- and, heck, maybe even a few security guards -- find you creepy because, uh, you're walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?
Just a guess.
EDITED TO ADD: More on the "creep" issue here.
Yeah, he's protesting WAY too much.
ReplyDeleteI recently discovered your blog, and I really like it. You're performing a good and necessary service. Keep it up.
Aight.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost - I'd like to put media blame on the first little issue of "male college student = bad". Lots of movies and news stories focus on the college-kids-gone-wild, not the well-behaved, well-mannered, well-dressed college students making it to class on time and doing well.
Just like not every college frat is a drunken mess and not every sorority is made out of big-chested blondes with no brain cells...not every college student male is out to cause trouble. It's just a general assumption (especially if you're traveling alone at night, or in an obnoxious group during the day). Of course on the other hand...dressing like a troublemaker isn't going to win any points for trying to escape attention either. (Not accusing anyone of anything - just pointing stuff out.)
I wouldn't chalk up this guy's feeling of being judged to paranoia; it's just that you have to learn to get used to being watched if you fit a certain type. (They do racial profiling in airports, and gender/general appearance profiling on campuses; people are born to judge, and they do it way too well.)
As to the more provocative commentary on sexual favors...
Personally, I've never met any female who has given sexual favors to get better grades. I've met students who have genuinely been interested in professors, and subsequently rebuffed, but that's a different track, I feel.
As for women who taunt men sexually, I'd say that men usually line themselves up for that one - going to strip clubs, say. Is the woman to blame for the man putting himself in a position where he will be "taunted" by her? Further, is the man to blame for wanting to enjoy seeing it? (Assigning blame seems to be so juvenile.)
"And since I'm not HOT, I'm automatically seen as a creepy rapist?"
Well...no. Generally speaking not hot (or HOT) just means you're on the lower end of the dating pool for shallow women, less likely to end up as a Hollister model, and more likely to have to display higher intelligence and a good sense of humor to find a mate.
(Also, do you WANT to be able to give blowjobs to profs for higher grades? Or sleep with a married woman and have her husband come after you if he found out? The whole dating/sleeping/sexing it up with profs just seems like a Bad Idea in general. Which is probably why so many of them are smart about the whole thing and say no in the first place. (I'm getting way off topic, but this particular post also ascribes no self-control to professors; like if a HOT woman approaches one, s/he will immediately give in, offer a higher grade and accept sexual favors. Usually I give them a touch more credit as reasoning human beings.))
See "the construction of the creep" on feministcritics.org (feminists that don't hate men)
ReplyDeleteSo let’s come back to creep. It’s like, the creep should know that he doesn’t deserve to presume interest. He doesn’t deserve to initiate the approach. Like my adolescent sense of misfit, he should know that he didn’t deserve any better than to take any comer.
Creep is a judgement in the eye of the beholder. Because the man isn’t going to think he doesn’t deserve to make the approach, of course. And I think this is why men are so insulted when they think they are making an appropriate approach to a woman, and get called a creep. It’s like, they may be perfectly willing to get called an asshole. But they resent “creep” because that means the woman calling him a creep is saying that no woman at all would ever be interested. And that he ought to have known that. He ought to have known he didn’t deserve to cross out of misfit-dom, to end up in creep-dom.
This takes privilege to a whole new level of female entitlement. It’s not that the woman doesn’t want anyone to approach her. She still wants the attention of desirable men. She just doesn’t want to deal with the consequence of her high value in the sexual market-place, namely that she has to reject unsuitable prospects. Moreover, she feels entitled to this. And if to meet that demand, less desirable men have to foreclose any possibility of achieving dating/sexual success of their own, she feels entitled to that too.
I wonder how much of the hostility directed toward the Seduction Community is predicated upon this idea that these men do not deserve to be approaching women.
Eoghan, you do realize that the "entitlement" you speak of works both ways, right? Before a man even approaches a woman he is interested in, he has made a judgment about her desirability. And in kind, she is able to make a judgment about his. Both people have an equal opportunity to accept or reject the other person.
ReplyDeleteA man who is visibly seething with anger that a woman has the right to say no when he's already decided that he wants her might be construed as creepy.
Yes, Andrea, it's amazing how some men are completely oblivious to the fact that there are women who are deemed undesirable, who men consistently choose NOT to approach, and should know that they don’t deserve any better than to take any comer.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the hostility directed toward the Seduction Community is predicated on the idea that these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire them.
I admit it:
ReplyDeleteas someone who was raised in Europe, I indeed find the WHOLE "approaching a woman to ask her out" situation creepy, except in a very few exceptional situations. but in most cases someone asked me for a phonenumber, this person didn't know SHIT about me, other than how I looked. From my perspective, asking a complete stranger whose appearance appeals to you for personal information is indeed massively creepy. I think I'd only make an exception on this for the guy at the library, but only because I can't remember what books I checked out, but possibly he figured we MIGHT have common interests from the books I checked out... still weird, seeing as we haven't exchanged a word before he asked for the number.
Aaaaaaanyway; the guy who badgered me for my number at work OTOH, and refused to take no for an answer? Creepy by both American and non-american standards. Pushing boundaries like that, in a situation where I can't tell you to fuck off, is NOT COOL. But some guys do feel entitled :-/
Andrea. You don't get the point, there is no culture where a less desirable woman is commonly labelled, deliberately psychologically attacked and constructed as being a borderline sex criminal and social outcast.
ReplyDeletePam, " predicated on the idea that these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire them".
You just made that up and have no idea about the seduction community (or mens rights) outside of what this blog tells you.
these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire them
ReplyDeleteIs that necessarily true? I'm not sure about that. Many folks in the Seduction Community would say that no woman, indeed, should be compelled to desire any man. If she doesn't desire you, it's because you don't have enough wit, haven't mastered the art of the neg, or, in generally, simply haven't gotten Game. And thus, your unhappy circumstances are your responsibility, not theirs.
"Many folks in the Seduction Community would say that no woman, indeed, should be compelled to desire any man. If she doesn't desire you, it's because you don't have enough wit, haven't mastered the art of the neg, or, in generally, simply haven't gotten Game. And thus, your unhappy circumstances are your responsibility, not theirs."
ReplyDeletewhich implies that any woman can be had, if you just got enough "game". because women are interchangable like that, and because the ability to trick any woman, who would otherwise not be interested, into fucking you is a good thing.
wtf?
I'm with Jadehawk, but not because of cultural matters. I largely dislike the phenomenon of being hit on, and it doesn't matter what the guy looks like at all. The idea that women will melt when an attractive guy approaches them but brush him off as a creep if he's not conventionally attractive is pretty short-sighted, stereotypical and even self-serving in my eyes. "Creepy" is all in the way you approach a woman, a way you act as though her private time and internal life isn't as valuable as your need to hit on her, a way you give off subtle hints about how you think about women, or, sorry to say, how you use tired PUA techniques that signal that you think women are monolithic in their psychology and need to be somehow bamboozled into liking you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, "creepy" has some self-preservation notions built in. Think "The Gift of Fear." Some guys give off a vibe that you just have to go with your gut on. Not all guys, but some, and if you're labeled as "creepy" all the time it likely has much more to do with how you're approaching a woman than it does with how you look.
It's hard to explain, but considering how many times I've been followed around by threatening guys who didn't take my "no, not interested" as actually having any meaning, I have a pretty good intuitive take on when someone is "creepy." It's in part a matter of safety, and men who think this kind of thing doesn't come into play haven't spent a second considering the very real reasons women can be standoffish. We can be standoffish because we are bombarded with unwanted attention all the time, not just by you that one time, and sometimes it's actually threatening. When it's not it's often just annoying, and it can be truly irksome to be just be trying to go about your business and have people constantly interrupting your life as though you owe them your time due to your gender.
Also, I just found this site and have been getting the biggest kick out of it. The comments sections are profoundly sad, though. How can people spend that much time talking about feminism without understanding what it even is? I am a feminist and am not in favor of any of the things some of these commenters seem to believe I am. In fact, I would suggest that a number of the things they hate about the world are things that feminism would very much like to get rid of. How sad to cut off all communication like that and blame all your problems on "feminism" or "feminists."
Signed,
A lady in a long-term hetero relationship that hasn't involved either marriage or money-taking or using children to ensure state support or any of these things women are supposedly driven by. Women are individuals, just like y'all.
I'm now having trouble with registering there, so I just lukrk public forums and rarely see any of comments like this one. You probably dig very deep for the kind of krap that fits this blog.
ReplyDeleteNo Eoghan, women who are not "desirable" are just invisible. Non-entities. They are just as lonely and wanting of companionship as any so-called "incel" but guys in the men's rights community don't seem to have any sense of empathy on that account, they are so busy pointing their fury and scorn on the narrow selection of women they desire.
ReplyDeleteAs Jadehawk pointed out, the "seduction community" spreads the idea that women are vending machines. Plug in your money and push the right buttons in the correct sequence and you get your prize. And M expanded on the ramifications of that idea wonderfully. Women are people. We can see that attitude, that anger and resentment, and many of us find it creepy.
Yes of course Andrea, can you stop trying to suggest that I don't get something as basic as the fact that there are men and women that are considered undesirable? The point is that women that are considered not desirable are not constructed as "creeps" and border line sex criminals because they are less desirable. That is the point that you are missing here.
ReplyDeleteThe male seduction community is just men catching up on the psychology of attraction, something that women have have been using for eons, no different just the other side of the coin. Men deliberately appealing to the female attraction triggers is no different from women deliberately appealing to male, except that many women don't like the tables being turned on them in the attraction game. The female seduction community is everywhere you look in magazines, the beauty industry etc.
If you can see men being angry because women think its acceptable to label less desirable men "creeps"/borderline sex criminals perhaps its women and not the men that need to change. Perhaps a little less relational violence and more humanity would result in a calmer reaction from these men?
"The male seduction community is just men catching up on the psychology of attraction, something that women have have been using for eons, no different just the other side of the coin. Men deliberately appealing to the female attraction triggers is no different from women deliberately appealing to male, except that many women don't like the tables being turned on them in the attraction game. The female seduction community is everywhere you look in magazines, the beauty industry etc."
ReplyDeletepushing buttons is pathetic in either direction, but I'll give women of the past a pass, since the ONLY way at making a good life for themselves was marrying well; when seduction is the only power/"job" you're allowed to have, of course you try to use it well.
Feminists have been trying to first free women from the necessity of this, and now the work is additionally on trying to free them from the mindset that it's still a necessity. Because people changing their entire behavior and personalities to what they think will attract the other sex is just sad and creepy.
"If you can see men being angry because women think its acceptable to label less desirable men "creeps"/borderline sex criminals perhaps its women and not the men that need to change. Perhaps a little less relational violence and more humanity would result in a calmer reaction from these men?"
1)Relational VIOLENCE? wow, you're vile. Let me fetch a man to answer that one: http://www.xyonline.net/content/women-world-just-relax-what-possible-reason-do-you-have-fear-men
2)No, it's not my or any other woman's responsibility to cause "calmer reactions" in men. You are the ones interrupting my day unasked, why am I responsible to you for anything?
3)You don't think women are labeled like that? What the hell do you think the term "bunny boiler" refers to? And no, it's not applied only to women who actually are acting criminally.
It's absolutely not the case that women can approach men in whatever way they want. Men can't approach other men in any way they want either.
ReplyDeleteI've had women come on to me in ways that were, in fact, creepy. I've had men come onto me in ways that were VERY creepy. Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder. But when you make someone uncomfortable, YOU are responsible for the consequences.
What is missing when a woman comes onto a man in a creepy way is the element of physical menace. I have NEVER, EVER feared for my safety because a woman I didn't like wouldn't leave me alone. Most women have been afraid because a man wouldn't leave them alone. Is that fair? Maybe not, but it's a natural consequence of the fact that men are physically more powerful than women.
Did my previous comment get eaten up? If not, I apologize for reposting it.
ReplyDeletewhich implies that any woman can be had, if you just got enough "game".
Not quite true. Most PUAs would admit there are some exceptions to the general rule, they're merely rare. If you were to say "most" women can be had, if you've sufficient game, that would be an accurate assessment of their position.
the ability to trick any woman, who would otherwise not be interested, into fucking you is a good thing.
Not dressing like a slob is "tricking" women? Acquiring wit and a good sense of humor is "tricking" women? That's an odd definition of "trickery," one that, amusingly enough, even many of your fellow feminists would disagree with.
Finally, if our host may forgive me for doing so, I can't help but note that PUAs have heard your description of their technique as "trickery" so many times they've formulated their own response to it. I can't like to his blog here, but Ferdinand offers the most cogent summation of it:
The general contention around this ‘sphere is that the biggest reason certain women hate and fear game is because it allows men to turn the traditional alpha-beta-omega hierarchy of sexual attractiveness on its head. When men can aspire to be alphas, or just raise themselves out of their station in life period, a fundamental pillar of female power is toppled.
I'm sure you'd have a witty refutation of this, but it is interesting food for thought, IMO.
vagrant, your comment was caught by the spam filter. (and now it's uncaught)
ReplyDeleteAs for Eoghan, he was banned from this blog a while ago, which means I normally delete every comment he posts here. I didn't delete the comments above from him because, well, I didn't see them until after they'd gotten responses, and because he was generally behaving.
Then, just a little while ago, he tried to post a comment that went way over the line. I deleted it, and he is banned for real again.
So just ignore any comments you see from him in the future, as I will be deleting them as soon as I see them.
Jadehawk's comments are fantastic here. I agree with Raul Groom too. Eoghan, all that "beauty industry" stuff is forced on women and girls from practically the beginning of consciousness and tells them they are beneath contempt if they don't try to measure up, and if you were really serious about understanding human nature and the societal and structural pressures that we are all under, this would be as plain as day to you.
ReplyDeleteAnd as I said before, being called a "creep" rarely has anything to do with a man's looks. I'm telling you this as a woman who is hit on constantly here, and if you're not just *all* about grievance you'll actually listen to that. Sex and attraction is about interplay, not about attention being owed to you by women you find attractive just because you find them attractive. They're people too, and their rejection is not just about some awful hideous shared female psychology. It might be because they are not attracted, it might be because they're in a relationship, it might be because they're busy thinking about work and you barged into their life with the attitude that you are owed something because they are women who fit your personal idea of what is attractive. And if you have the kinds of attitudes that you've shown yourself in these comment sections to have, TRUST ME, it shows in how you talk to women. They can tell. At least I know I can tell. It's not hard to distinguish someone who thinks of you as a full and autonomous human being from someone who doesn't, trust me, my friend.
Oh, and vagrant: it's true that not every aspect of Game is trickery, but there's no question that a lot of it involves deception and psychological manipulation. Many if not most "openers" talked about by PUAs are essentially flat-out lies; "negs" are manipulative, etc etc.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned before, I'll be doing a post on this at some point.
Oh, and Jadehawk, M, Andrea, Raul (and any other newcomers I've missed), thanks for the cogent comments and welcome to the world of man boobz.
ReplyDeleteSomehow forgot to post this before, but there's more discussion of the "creep" issue here:
http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/scary-man-sters-and-super-creeps.html
some people need to seriously get over the idiocy that is the greek-lettering-for-males. You're not a wolfpack, no matter how manly that sounds. Plus, women can support themselves financially just fine and if they want "high-quality genetics", they'll go to the sperm-bank and buy some. And there's no unified standard for what's attractive to women, anyway, outside of magazines and Romantic Comedies.
ReplyDeleteI had an "alpha male" boyfriend once. Booring. Since then, I've preferred guys who pay less attention to their looks, and instead have something interesting to say (and incidentally, if you take all your "interesting things to say" out of a manual, isn't going to last very long, if it's going to be interesting at all). In fact, the current boyfriend is a "beta" and a self-admitted "creep" because he has a tendency to say honest and impressively outrageous things (sample conversation: "oooh, your hair is soo cool" "yeah, I haven't washed it for several months" "ewwww!!!"), but he's very intelligent and fascinating to talk to. and sexy in the scrawny punk sort of way. Because that's what I find attractive. And other women find other things attractive, even for one-nighters (personal experience: the closer in appearance to a troll, the better in bed), so most guys who don't reek from halfway across the room and drool at the sight of a woman will find a woman who finds them attractive.
Except when all you go for are the women who put a shitload of effort into conforming to the conventional beauty/behavior-standard, because they figure if they are going to put that much effort into their looks, they deserve someone who does the same. Alpha females looking for alpha males, in your ridiculous terms. But if those are the only women you're after, it's your own fault when you get rejected, and you don't get to complain that she has such a high standard (for appearance), because obviously so do you.
Yes to everything Jadehawk said.
ReplyDeleteSome people need to seriously get over the idiocy that is the greek-lettering-for-males. You're not a wolfpack, no matter how manly that sounds.
ReplyDeleteAs the proprietor of the Chateau once asked, Isn’t it just like a nerd to get hysterical over the appropriation of a narrow-sense scientific term to conveniently illustrate broader truths about men and women?
That said, if you yourself find 'betas' attractive and 'alphas' not, good for you, though the more misogynistic Gamers would say you're probably either being dishonest or simply incapable of perceiving what you actually want--in their view, women are generally stupid, irrational, and absolute experts at deluding themselves, so that the ones who say they don't like "bad boys" actually prove they do.
That is extreme, however, and probably not worthy of consideration. However, even the more moderate PUAs would say that you're simply an exception, and as I said above, *most* women go for "alphas." You still haven't explained how there's any trickery involved in mimicking these 'alpha' behaviors--as I asked above, is there anything wrong with not being a slob or gaining a sense of humor or wit?
(Before you get angry at me, keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree with anything I've quoted or linked to above. I'm merely saying that these are the counterarguments I've managed to find. My own beliefs are somewhere different, though admittedly perhaps not too far off)
you can't "gain" a sense of humor and wit by using someone else's idea of humor and wit. Like I said, moulding yourself to fit a stereotype to the point where you stop being yourself is sad and not something that should be encouraged in either sex.
ReplyDelete"However, even the more moderate PUAs would say that you're simply an exception, and as I said above, *most* women go for "alphas.""
Except not. Most women who themselves are "alphas" go for alphas. You're making a large cohort of women invisible with that statement.
"You still haven't explained how there's any trickery involved in mimicking these 'alpha' behaviors--as I asked above, is there anything wrong with not being a slob or gaining a sense of humor or wit?"
you said it yourself: you're "mimicking": not your style, not your humor, not your wit. Plus, as David mentioned, a lot of "the game" is manipulative, not at all a question of gaining some self-confidence. That it serves misogynists so well at hiding their personality long enough to trick a woman that she can safely be naked in the same room as him is a VERY big point against this sort of "game".
and david, thank you for the welcome. Found your blog via pandagon :-)
ReplyDeleteyou can't "gain" a sense of humor and wit by using someone else's idea of humor and wit.
ReplyDeleteI'm sympathetic to this view, but I think it's somewhat unfair if one takes a larger analysis. Don't most comedians derive their humor from those who've came before them? Ask any comedian like Chris Rock or whoever and they'll tell you forebears like Richard Pryor influenced them greatly. If they're allowed to use other people's humor as inspirations or examples, why can't regular guys do the same to make themselves more attractive?
Also, keep in mind that making yourself more attractive to women is *not* the only purpose of game. The aforementioned Roissy has written a great deal about how learning Game will make you more successful at the workplace and with other men, not just with women.
Except not. Most women who themselves are "alphas" go for alphas. You're making a large cohort of women invisible with that statement.
Nope. In the view of the PUAs, most women go for alphas (i.e confident, dominant, aloof men), regardless of whether or not they themselves are alphas (in PUA terms, an alpha woman is someone who's physically attractive, a 9 or 10 on the looks scale). The "large cohort" you describe is actually vanishingly small, in their view.
That it serves misogynists so well at hiding their personality long enough to trick a woman that she can safely be naked in the same room as him is a VERY big point against this sort of "game".
What do you mean, "safely?" Merely being a misogynist does not make one a rapist or a threat to women in any other sense. Most rapists/batterers/whoever may be misogynists, but it doesn't follow, logically, that most misogynists are rapists/batterers/whoever.
Secondly, many of the most misogynistic gamers don't have to hide anything--as they'd say, women are attracted to them *because* of their misogyny, not despite it, and many of them make it clear to the women they're around that they don't think very highly of them.
Being influenced by, and being so derivative as to be formulaic, are two different things. think of it this way, if you must: every brunette that's a betty page lookalike, every blonde that's a marilyn monroe lookalike, are tragedies of loosing themselves in a stereotype. The same for men who lose themselves in formulaic humor and pickup lines and fake wit
ReplyDelete"Also, keep in mind that making yourself more attractive to women is *not* the only purpose of game. The aforementioned Roissy has written a great deal about how learning Game will make you more successful at the workplace and with other men, not just with women."
this is what feminists call "patriarchy hurts men, too": the fact that you have to become a toxic, agressive lying asshole to get a better job.
"In the view of the PUAs, most women go for alphas (i.e confident, dominant, aloof men), regardless of whether or not they themselves are alphas (in PUA terms, an alpha woman is someone who's physically attractive, a 9 or 10 on the looks scale). The "large cohort" you describe is actually vanishingly small, in their view."
Just how precisely does this contradict what I said. "their view" is so blinkered, they're not capable of seeing the aforementioned cohort.
"What do you mean, "safely?" Merely being a misogynist does not make one a rapist or a threat to women in any other sense. Most rapists/batterers/whoever may be misogynists, but it doesn't follow, logically, that most misogynists are rapists/batterers/whoever."
being a misogynist increases the likelihood of rape, assault, refusal to use protection, et cetera ad nauseam. Misogynists are dangerous (and inconsiderate, but that's a separate point) lays in more ways than just rape, but rape alone would be sufficient. Or do you think there's non-misogynist rapists?
"Secondly, many of the most misogynistic gamers don't have to hide anything--as they'd say, women are attracted to them *because* of their misogyny, not despite it, and many of them make it clear to the women they're around that they don't think very highly of them."
Which serves as a winnowing process for all women who aren't "battered housewife material", so to speak. Which is an even worse combination: women suffering from extremely low self-esteem/inability to defend themselves against boundary-pushing, and the men most likely to push boundaries. That's where abusive relationships come from.
However, I do think formulaic and manipulative "negging" etc. does hide, by its formulaic nature, a lot of much deeper hatred of women.
fuck, google ate my long response, and I can't be bothered to retype, so here's the bullet-point version
ReplyDelete--derivative (or even self-negating) and inspired are two completely different things; plus, losing yourself in a "role" is tragic in and of itself: every bettie page or marilyn monroe lookalike is an individual tragically lost to stereotype, and so is every guy who dresses, speaks, and behaves the way others tell him he should.
--men having to turn into toxic, aggressive carbon-copy-assholes to advance in their jobs is what feminists refer to as "patriarchy hurts men, too"
--the view of mPUA's is so blinkered, they aren't capable of perceiving the aforementioned cohort. that's pretty much what I just said.
--mPUA's who "attract" women by misogyny, in fact winnow out all women who aren't suffering from broken self-esteem and inability to recognize/fend-off pushy advances. this is the combination from which abusive relationships form: women incapable to defend themselves against boundary-pushing, and the men most likely to push them.
--the formulaic nature of "game" does in fact conceal some of the worst hatred of women, putting even more women in danger
--being naked and alone with misogynists increases the likelihood of rape, assault, refusal to wear protection, and a long list of other traumatizing and dangerous forms of boundary-pushing; but rape alone is a good enough reason to despise this sort of trickery; or do you think there's non-misogynist rapists?
I actually feel some sympathy for men on this issue--although not those who feel entitled to women on principal, or who get hostile when rejected. The fact is, Jadehawk, there are a lot of women out there who absolutely go for attractive, confident, charming men, and who are much more receptive to overtures from those types than from more off-putting (for whatever reason) ones. This creates a confusing double standard for men, who are socially expected to pursue women, and yet who face humiliation in this approach if they're deemed to be in the wrong 'league'--women can be extremely cruel in the manner in which they reject men who don't fit their ideal. Unfortunately, being extremely good-looking gives women a certain entitlement complex as well: they can get away with appalling behaviour. (I only have to think back to my adolescence to recall that the cruelest specimen of humanity is a popular 14-year-old girl). I have no problem with those women being led on by PUAs; most intelligent women with an ounce of analytical ability aren't going to be interested in those tricks anyway. Or any women who have interest beyond the superficial in their mates. But I agree with thevagrantsvoice; most women are susceptible, because people in general don't generally question the social norms that cause them to react in a predictable manner.
ReplyDelete"there are a lot of women out there who absolutely go for attractive, confident, charming men, [...] being extremely good-looking gives women a certain entitlement complex"
ReplyDeletelike I said. you don't get to complain that she has a high standard about looks when you do, too.
and seriously, adolescence? and you think a picky 14-year-old girl is the worst? what a sheltered life you've lived, if that's true. those who have been bullied into suicide for being "different" (gay, goth, fat, wrong race/religion/class, take your pick) by both girls and boys (and beaten to bloody pulp by said boys) would have a word with you on that one, if they weren't, you know, dead.
As for the "double bind"... go back to my first post. I already said that American-style dating is cruel and pathetic, and inherently creepy, and I'm against everything that perpetuates this instead of killing that dynamic, be it Valentine's Day or PUA bullshit.
seriously... WHY would anyone think it's not hypocritical to ask out "the popular girl" (i.e. having obviously a pretty high standard for who you're asking out), and then get pissy because the girl has a high standard, too?
ReplyDeletebesides, every geek who's asked 3 times a week to fix a computer/every mechanic asked 3 times a week to look at someone's car/etc ad nauseam should know that one's patience wears very thin when people won't stop bugging you for the same shit over and over.
"this is what feminists call 'patriarchy hurts men, too': the fact that you have to become a toxic, agressive lying asshole to get a better job."
ReplyDeleteYes.
Jade -- your long post got caught by the spam filter (alas, I can't turn the thing off). It's up now.
ReplyDeletevagrant: "In the view of the PUAs, most women go for alphas (i.e confident, dominant, aloof men), regardless of whether or not they themselves are alphas."
Yeah, PUAs (and MGTOWs and MRAs etc etc) repeat this assertion over and over. And maybe that's true on the level of fantasy (romance novels, celebrity crushes, that sort of thing). Is there ANY evidence that this is true in real life? (Evolutionary psychology speculations don't count as evidence, nor do studies of non-human animals.)
Not only this, but the PUAs etc also seem to think that most women simply refuse to have sex with anyone but the alpha bad boys that the PUAs think are always the winner. Or that if women do get into relationships with betas they will cheat with impunity with whatever alpha bad boy wanders by. Again, any proof of this?
It seems to me that women choose all sorts of different guys. Just as guys choose all sorts of women.
I think the entire focus on "standards" sort of misses the point, or at least comes at it from a strangely male point of view.
ReplyDeleteIn my limited experience (I've had one sexual partner), the "average" woman is primarily attracted to men who are competent, well-spoken, honest, and interested in things that are interesting to her, too.
Like most men, I was physically more attractive when I was younger. I was slim, strong, and aggressive. I met a lot of women who thought I was attractive, but I certainly wasn't someone who was able to hook up with whomever I wanted. Occasionally I would meet someone who liked me and we would make out. It was fun.
Now, I'm married, and I'm much better with women. I've come to be interested more in the lives of other people who aren't myself (including, of course, women), and more appreciative of things about women that don't have anything to do with their sexuality.
If I could "do it all over again" I would do it the same, because I met my wife and our relationship is the bedrock of my life. But if I were fifteen again and trying to get some sex, I would try to relax and just treat women like people. I wouldn't worry about getting into the "friend zone." Life is long. People who found you boring three years ago might be pining for you now. In the meantime, go out and have a good time. You might meet somebody and hook up! Or, you might not. Selah.
"I think the entire focus on "standards" sort of misses the point, or at least comes at it from a strangely male point of view.
ReplyDeleteIn my limited experience (I've had one sexual partner), the "average" woman is primarily attracted to men who are competent, well-spoken, honest, and interested in things that are interesting to her, too."
you're right. my point in bringing the "standards" thing up was that the woman PUA's seem to aim for are not that "average woman", but rather they aim for the "most popular girl"; a girl/woman who has consciously or subconsciously invested quite a lot in the patriarchy and therefore will act out the patriarchal script in her choice of partners, as well (and then putting these women in the double-bind of demanding they conform to these toxic standards when it comes to themselves, but break with it when it comes to choosing partners)
and all that while attacking precisely those women (and men) who want to undo that dynamic. which is both ironic and hypocritical
sorry for the deteriorating grammar. that's what i get for multitasking
ReplyDeleteIs there ANY evidence that this is true in real life?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you wouldn't call it "good" evidence, but Roissy has blog post after blog post about how science has confirmed his prejudices. See these:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/science-proves-me-right-again/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/the-alpha-male-body-language-that-attracts-women/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/proof-of-the-modern-american-harem/
The list goes on. Just go to Roissy's place or Ferdinand's and search for "scientific" or "study" to see the sort of 'evidence' they find to support their views, in addition to evolutionary biology.
Again, not saying I necessarily agree, merely that this is what they might say.
(Also, I don't mean to impose on you, but please don't comment on them, or if you must, don't tell them that I sent you the links. I really don't want to get involved in some sort of e-war between you and the PUAs).
the woman PUA's seem to aim for are not that "average woman", but rather they aim for the "most popular girl";
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to be blunt, but from my observations, this strikes me as completely, utterly, and laughably wrong. PUAs are not picky about what sort of women they "aim for," the advantage of Game, in their view, is that it works on nearly ANY woman, properly applied--the "popular" one and the non-popular one, the "hot" one and the average one, the conservative and the liberal, the traditional and the progressive, and so on.
I might be wrong about this, but I'm genuinely curious as to what makes you think PUAs only aim for the 'popular' girls--and I say this as one whose interest in them is purely academic (I'm not a PUA).
I am not the person you're asking the question of but I would respond that from my observation a lot of the MRA-esque discussion of women in general, from what I've seen -- and I've delved into the "man-o-spehere" and PUAs more than most women could probably stand over the years -- tends to focus on the most superficial women out there, the most looks-obsessed both with regard to themselves and to men, and then extrapolate some sort of essentialist feminine superficiality and ruthless cruelty from this very small selection of people. And to that I say: well duh, superficial people are superficial. That goes for women and for men. Stop selecting only for your attentions and then concluding, because you're treated badly, that all women are superficial.
ReplyDeleteI know this doesn't ring true for everyone but I just have not met the women the MRAs are talking about save the small handful of truly heinous looks-obsessed, money-obsessed, status-obsessed jerks that exist across gender. A lot of MUA grievance when it isn't just straight misogyny seems to carry a lot of selection bias.
Stop selecting only for your ideal attractions, sorry
ReplyDeletetends to focus on the most superficial women out there, the most looks-obsessed both with regard to themselves and to men,
ReplyDeleteFair enough, I thank you for your response. However, from my observations--perhaps not as long as yours, I'm no MRA master after all--the negative view many of them have of women comes from experience with a very wide variety of them, far wider than I personally have, which includes many women who didn't seem "superficial" at all at first glance. A common contention among MGTOWs is that women hide their fundamental vileness and amorality very well, and that seemingly "sweet" girls will prove how superficial they are under the right kind of inspection.
Anyways, in response to Jadehawk's longer comment, since Blogger ate mine as well...
Being influenced by, and being so derivative as to be formulaic, are two different things. think of it this way, if you must: every brunette that's a betty page lookalike, every blonde that's a marilyn monroe lookalike, are tragedies of loosing themselves in a stereotype. The same for men who lose themselves in formulaic humor and pickup lines and fake wit
I cannot argue against this much, as I agree with it for the most part. However, I would say this: The simple, sad, but also, to me it seems, undeniable fact is that we do not live in a world which values originality. Thus, I find it hard to blame anyone who simply acknowledges that reality and tries to make the best of it, whether it's "copy-cat" gamers or Marilyn Monroe lookalikes. If what they do works, and it seems like it does, I can't really bring myself to condemn their methods too harshly.
he fact that you have to become a toxic, agressive lying asshole to get a better job.
Again, this strikes me as a laughably inaccurate and melodramatically negative assessment of what Game teaches. If being more confident, assertive, and witty makes one a "toxic aggressive lying asshole," and can be laid at the feet of the patriarchy, I find it hard to believe that either assholes or patriarchy are such bad things.
(sorry for the double comment, long long long...)
ReplyDeleteJust how precisely does this contradict what I said. "their view" is so blinkered, they're not capable of seeing the aforementioned cohort.
I hope I'm not being rude, but I would say that many people, not just PUAs, find the aforementioned cohort very hard to see. The fact that so many people from such a wide variety of backgrounds can't see the cohort you describe seems to indicate, to me, that perhaps the Gamers are right; your demographic is indeed very small. 'Blinkers' have nothing to do with it.
being a misogynist increases the likelihood of rape, assault, refusal to use protection, et cetera ad nauseam.
Very well, for the purposes of argument let's concede your misogyny point. However, many things increase the likelihood of rape. Alcohol, for instance, but I doubt you'd argue that alcohol fueled rape makes booze inherently evil. Thus, just like the fact evil misogynists can use alcohol to inebriate and make vulnerable women doesn't make alcohol bad, the fact that Game can be used by misogynists for nefarious purposes doesn't make Game inherently bad either.
(This isn't even going into how some say Game made them less misogynistic, not moreso).
Which serves as a winnowing process for all women who aren't "battered housewife material"
Some might say that most if not all women are "battered housewife material," including the ones with "high self-esteem" or whatever. Whether or not this is true is another debate, I'm simply saying that the genuinely misogynist gamers would claim that women in general are receptive to being treated poorly whether or not they have "high self-esteem."
"I might be wrong about this, but I'm genuinely curious as to what makes you think PUAs only aim for the 'popular' girls"
ReplyDelete-their rating scale, which ranks "average" women very low (thus disappearing the "below average")
-their focus on fairly young women, esp. college-aged
-their dismissal of unconventionally-looking women as "butch dykes", "warpigs", etc
-their relative rarity in alternative scenes (I've yet to meet a hippie PUA, though I'm sure somewhere out there there's one or two)
-their focus on the looks of the women they discuss, instead of shared interests etc. (If I had a penny for every "I don't like her hobbies, but...")
-their anti-feminism
I'm sure there's exceptions, but that's the overall impression.
"A common contention among MGTOWs is that women hide their fundamental vileness and amorality very well, and that seemingly 'sweet' girls will prove how superficial they are under the right kind of inspection."
ReplyDeleteSee, a feminist view is that we're all, women and men, given such rigid gender roles that many women find themselves acting or pretending to be "sweet" because they're taught that's how women should -- nay, must -- behave even when that's not who they truly are, as people are far too complicated to be something as simple and one-dimensional as "sweet." My feminist response to the MGTOW viewpoint you're describing is that "women" are not fundamentally any one way, but that strict and problematic gender roles expect all of us, men and women, to act in false ways.
This truly has nothing to do with women essentially being any one way. It has to do with how we're expected to act, and how the unrealistic ways we're expected to act can break down and break us down.
My feminist response to the MGTOW viewpoint you're describing is that "women" are not fundamentally any one way, but that strict and problematic gender roles expect all of us, men and women, to act in false ways.
ReplyDeleteHmm...thank you for that, I do appreciate it. I'm not sure if I believe it or not, but it's an honest and forthright answer. Thank you again.
-their rating scale, which ranks "average" women very low (thus disappearing the "below average")
-their focus on fairly young women, esp. college-aged
-their dismissal of unconventionally-looking women as "butch dykes", "warpigs", etc
-their relative rarity in alternative scenes (I've yet to meet a hippie PUA, though I'm sure somewhere out there there's one or two)
-their focus on the looks of the women they discuss, instead of shared interests etc. (If I had a penny for every "I don't like her hobbies, but...")
-their anti-feminism
They may share all these attributes, but merely because they may be personally repulsive and shallow does not necessarily mean their conclusions are false or applicable only to a small subset of the population. Many PUAs would might say they aim for your "popular girl" as a high goal, but many of them would also say they've had similar success with using Game on "average" girls, "alternative" girls (Roissy has written about his successes with hippy and progressive chicks), and so on.
"Hmm...thank you for that, I do appreciate it. I'm not sure if I believe it or not, but it's an honest and forthright answer. Thank you again."
ReplyDeleteVagrantsvoice, if it's untrue than one half of the human race is just naturally vile and selfish and awful, and how could that be? I mean I'm a woman and I'm engaging you honestly here. Am I just naturally awful and selfish? No one is naturally awful and selfish! People are individuals; personal traits come into play, and some people of both genders are just really terrible people. But social factors come into play too, and socialization has a big effect on how we construct our social selves and the people we present ourselves as to the world and to potential partners.
This viewpoint requires that we have sympathy for all people for being at the mercy, to some extent, of these forces. Feminists seek to free all people from these unfair structures, men and women.
One man's take on how these same ideas pertain to men is Tony Porter's speech, "The Man Box," if you haven't seen it. It's pretty short but is a thought-provoking video if you haven't explored how feminism is about a fair world for men too.
meh. blogger just did something weird to the comment I was only half-done writing. how annoying. let's try again.
ReplyDelete"Thus, I find it hard to blame anyone who simply acknowledges that reality and tries to make the best of it, whether it's "copy-cat" gamers or Marilyn Monroe lookalikes. If what they do works, and it seems like it does, I can't really bring myself to condemn their methods too harshly."
fighting against a shitty reality and for a better one is what progressives, and feminists especially, do. And for as long as they've been doing that, they've been resented, hindered, and actively despised by those who prefer to take the path of least resistance. Personally, I'm slowly running out of "understanding", especially for the more privileged (in the sociological, not the economic, meaning) members of society.
"If being more confident, assertive, and witty makes one a "toxic aggressive lying asshole," and can be laid at the feet of the patriarchy, I find it hard to believe that either assholes or patriarchy are such bad things."
the most successful men are almost exclusively a combination of toxic, aggressive, lying, and assholish. And besides... what does it matter for job-performance whether you're witty, assertive, etc. What you SHOULD be promoted for is whether you know what the fuck you're doing. As it is, it's the inept but brown-nosing (and conventionally attractive) parts of the workforce who get promoted, and who get to the top positions, not the competent ones(or as my mom so aptly describes it: "'manager' is a swearword" :-p ). That you have to become something you're not to get promoted is not positive, no matter how you look at it.
"The fact that so many people from such a wide variety of backgrounds can't see the cohort you describe seems to indicate, to me, that perhaps the Gamers are right; your demographic is indeed very small."
confirmation bias and cultural narrative (movies especially). I blame the lack of a street-friendly culture that would permit more people-watching. Otherwise anyone could spend a few hours on a sunny day sitting in a cafe and observing the couples that come by, and listening in on their conversations: they're soooo rarely "alpha males" with their "trophy girlfriends". most of the time, it's normal people doing normal stuff.
For that matter, how many long-lasting marriages/partnerships do you know that started out as clubbing flirts, rather than people sharing interest?
I suggest to you that high-school and the frat-culture skews the perception of people, because those are the two places where the toxic, patriarchal stereotypes are acted out most commonly and haphazardly by both sexes, for various complicated reasons that blogger is guaranteed to consider too long.
"Thus, just like the fact evil misogynists can use alcohol to inebriate and make vulnerable women doesn't make alcohol bad, the fact that Game can be used by misogynists for nefarious purposes doesn't make Game inherently bad either."
the game is inherently misogynist, for the reasons I stated at the beginning (women=monoliths; women=pussy vending machines; etc); it's also perpetrating the toxic dynamics feminists are trying to dismantle, for everyone's benefit. The effect here is an additional point against it, not the main one.
"This isn't even going into how some say Game made them less misogynistic, not moreso"
I have a very hard time believing that to be true. Less actively angry at women, maybe. more respectful of them, more empathetic towards them... not bloody likely
fuck it. i hate blogger. answer in spamfolder.
ReplyDeleteHm. That's a legitimate question, but one which would take some time to answer, and I'm not sure our host would approve of it either--this is his blog, and I don't really want to post long screeds he'd find objectionable. Suffice it to say I can think of one person would argue humanity in generally is indeed naturally awful and selfish. And I don't think Thomas Hobbes was an MRA or MGTOW...
ReplyDeleteStill, I suppose such unhappy ruminations would make me a gratuitous guest indeed. I apologize, and thank you again for your response.
"They may share all these attributes, but merely because they may be personally repulsive and shallow does not necessarily mean their conclusions are false or applicable only to a small subset of the population. Many PUAs would might say they aim for your "popular girl" as a high goal, but many of them would also say they've had similar success with using Game on "average" girls, "alternative" girls (Roissy has written about his successes with hippy and progressive chicks), and so on."
ReplyDeleteagain, what they describe as "average" in fact isn't. That's what I'm trying to say. It's a very well known effect that certain women are completely and utterly invisible to men, and moreso the more said men are invested in patriarchal masculinity themselves. "women" in such contexts are a very specific set of female humans, and it's not all those with a vagina.
It's a very well known effect that certain women are completely and utterly invisible to men
ReplyDeleteReally? Genuinely not trolling here, but this is the first time I've ever heard about this 'effect.' If it wouldn't be too much trouble, might you describe it in further depth, or direct me to further reading at least? Again, genuinely not trolling, just curious.
I believe Jadehawk is talking about the selection bias I mentioned above, in which only women who meet certain standards of femininity and hetero desirability are even counted, while women who may not meet those standards are ignored altogether as not worth anyone's attention. Some MRAs talk about how women unfairly only go for the "most attractive" men and how awful that is, but the women they're talking about are only a subset of women they have decided are even desirable enough to approach or think about in the first place.
ReplyDeleteif you're genuinely interested, I'll search for some stuff for you tomorrow. I really need to stop posting and get some work done now
ReplyDeleteThank you very much, Jadehawk. I'm sorry for the imposition and I appreciate your patience.
ReplyDeleteSorry, spamfilter has gone bonkers and is filtering half the comments. They're up now.
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks, everyone who was spamfiltered, for your patience.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I think is important that gets left behind a bit in some of these discussions - the "Nice Guy" conceit is a really natural phase for a guy to go through when he's young and just figuring out romantic attraction.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is if you get stuck there. The worst thing you could possibly do if you're a young guy (guessing here, vagrantsvoice) is get mixed up with older guys who have stabilized on this immature view of romantic life.
Suffice it to say I can think of one person would argue humanity in generally is indeed naturally awful and selfish. And I don't think Thomas Hobbes was an MRA or MGTOW...
ReplyDeleteBut that's not what MRAs and/or MGTOWs are arguing, is it. As you stated a few posts ago (the bold emphasis is mine), "A common contention among MGTOWs is that women hide their fundamental vileness and amorality very well,...", the "natural awfulness and selfishness" of men not being an issue at all, save for when describing that small subset of men that women naturally and hypergamously (I'm using this word in the context in which MRAs/MGTOWs/PUAs tend to use it), flock towards.
Continuing on with your statement about the common contention of MGTOW's (which I do realize is not necessarily your POV), "...and that seemingly 'sweet' girls will prove how superficial they are under the right kind of inspection." What do they define as 'sweet'? Submissive? Obedient? People-pleasing to the detriment of their own wants/needs/pleasures? And what, exactly, is "the right kind of inspection"?
Is that necessarily true? I'm not sure about that in response to my these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire them reply to Eoghan:
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't believe that that's necessarily true of the Seduction Community, I was being a bit of an a-hole toying with Eoghan's statements. But far from Eoghan's "...have no idea about the seduction community (or mens rights) outside of what this blog tells you" directed at me, I have opinions that are drawn directly from lurking and participating at MRA/MGTOW sites (granted, I haven't spent a lot of time at PUA sites), and what is most obvious to me and frustrates me the most is how obtuse they are about the contradictory and hypocritical nature of many of their contentions. For example, many a time I have read their comments denouncing feminism in particular and women in general for not being "feminine" (i.e., 'sweet girls', submissive, compliant, obedient, etc.)anymore. They want women to "hide their fundamental vileness and amorality very well" (in essence, to mold themselves into something that they are not in order to be pleasing to men), and then, when the mold inevitably breaks, decry the fact that women kept it hidden from them. One of the things that feminism is attempting to do is to break women out of that mold before it is formed... but guess what, men (no, not ALL men) push back against that, because not only do they WANT the fakery and phoniness, but they want it to be REALITY when it's NOT! Many a young girl's most natural state of being is a "tomboy".... but don't worry, she'll grow out of it or be broken of it, societal heteronorms will make sure of that, because we need to have a gaping chasm of differences between men and women, lest they not be attracted to each other, even if that gaping chasm is based on lies and deceit.
"I look forward to Davids "expose" of the male seduction community in which he misses the blatantly obvious fact that for everything he digs out about it, women were there doing/selling it or some variation of it, first."
ReplyDeleteIt's very odd to me that you can't see how childish this attitude is.
This blog is kind of childish. Do you think that somehow forces you to be childish?
ReplyDeleteFor those here who aren't quite as far down the rabbit-hole as Eoghan, but who share his resentments - can you see that Eoghan's worldview is choking his happiness? Can you see what will happen to you if you emulate him?
ReplyDeleteChoose another path. You'll be glad you did.
Pam, one of your posts got spamfiltered and it's up now. I realize this is frustrating, especially when the spam filter eats a long substantive post, and appreciate your patience.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Eoghan thing, he's banned here (for numerous reasons). I gave him yet another chance the other day, and he used it to post a nasty post that got him rebanned. So please just ignore him. I've deleted all his recent comments in this thread.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, David, I kinda figured that that's what occurred, and knowing that comments sometimes end up in the spam filter, I tend to copy/paste into Word or Notepad the more lengthy posts that I make, just in case they end up lost in the ether rather than just sitting in the spam filter.
ReplyDeleteI like how Eoghan, in a discussion of male creepiness, refuses to take 'no' for an answer.
ReplyDeleteOops. Anyway, thanks for the welcome and see ya round.
ReplyDeleteAnd so what did my long post have to do with the topic of "creeps"? It's that wanting for an unreality to be a reality that makes some women view some men as "creeps" or "creepy". Man X is attracted to woman X and asks her out. Woman X is not attracted to man X and declines. Man X does not like the reality that woman X has declined, and so continues to push and push and push until woman X finally relents and agrees to go out with man X, mainly because she needs him to stop taking up her time with his pushiness. Man X is elated that woman X has agreed to go out with him, as that means that she desires him as he desires her. Man X and woman X go out on their date, and by the end of the date, woman X is no more attracted to him than she was before she agreed to go out with him. She declines when Man X asks her out on a second date. Man X flies into a rage... how dare she lead him on like that, making him think that she liked him when all she really wanted was a free meal at a fancy restaurant and on an on and on.
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't woman X's "hypergamous" and entitled nature that made her view man X as a creep/creepy, it was man X's persistence in bending reality to fit the reality that he desired. And woman X has been through this scenario before and thus is creeped out when man X does not accept her initial response to his request.
I like how Eoghan, in a discussion of male creepiness, refuses to take 'no' for an answer.
ReplyDeleteROTFLMAO!!! Really, how apropos is THAT?!
thevagrantsvoice:
ReplyDeletemy quick search was somewhat stymied by the fact that most of the meaty writing on the subject is about invisibility of certain women in the media, and invisibility in economics, (and while the former is connected to the issue at hand, it's only indirectly so) and so the dating/hotness/pussy power stuff is harder to find. So, I'll leave you for now with two articles about disappearing the unfuckable women, some charts from okTrends, and the intro to a book (which, as a whole, unfortunately godwins itself later-on) in which the author notes that dating-invisibility from a first-person perspective:
atricle 1
article 2
charts
book intro
and just for the fuck of it, this article, which unfortunately (but understandably) lacks some very relevant visual data, but is still interesting to look at in general; and for topic relevance, note how many men message "ugly" women, and how many women message "ugly" men :-p
Pam is speaking truth in her comments. If any of the MRAs or MRA-sympathetic guys reading this want to understand what's going on in these kinds of situations, you'd be well suited to consider what she's saying rather than what a bunch of bitter dudes are saying *about* "female psychology" they haven't truly bothered to try to understand. Trust me, you will be better off for it.
ReplyDeletefighting against a shitty reality and for a better one is what progressives, and feminists especially, do.
ReplyDelete*shrugs* For those of us who aren't feminists and/or progressives, then, your worldview merely seems quixotic and impractical, and not something to be taken seriously, in that case. Reality is what it is. You bend to it by surrender or by force, but you bend to it one way or the other.
That you have to become something you're not to get promoted is not positive, no matter how you look at it.
Under this rubric, virtually any form of self-improvement is "becoming something you're not." If I want to get a job as a computer programmer but know nothing about programming, am I becoming "something I'm not" by hitting the books and learning some Java? If I want to become a fireman but lack the physical strength, am I "becoming something I'm not" if I start working out and building up my strength? And in any case, being confident and assertive does not preclude being competent. What would you rather have, a manager who knows what he's doing and is dull, unpersonable, and irritating, or a manager who knows what he's doing and is fun, witty, and easy to get along with?
how many long-lasting marriages/partnerships do you know that started out as clubbing flirts, rather than people sharing interest?
Even married men recognize the importance of Game--Roissy's blog is full of people who claim how the art of learning the neg, push-pull, etc. saved their 10+ year long marriage. Check out Athol Kay's blog for another example of this, though again, don't tell him I sent you (I don't want to get involved in more e-wars).
the game is inherently misogynist, for the reasons I stated at the beginning (women=monoliths; women=pussy vending machines; etc)
ReplyDeleteBut Game doesn't claim these things. Most Gamers will admit that there are exceptions, and even for guys who love their wives/girlfriends for reasons beyond their pussies, they acknowledge the importance of Game in keeping their lovers happy. You can't really argue that Game is inherently misogynistic, at least not in any way anyone who's not a "feminist" or "progressive" would find meaningful.
I suggest to you that high-school and the frat-culture skews the perception of people
Perhaps I must defer to you on this point--I'm not a professional people-watcher, and I haven't been alive for that long either. However, in that brief span of time, and in all the places I've been--not merely high school and in college, but at restaurants and cafes, retail stores and movie theaters, libraries and craft shops--tells me the Gamers may not be all that far off in their view of the genders.
Reality is what it is. You bend to it by surrender or by force, but you bend to it one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is exactly what makes creepy men (or creepy women...but the focus of the OP is on creepy men, so I'll stick with that) creepy. It's not their looks, their finances, etc., it's their unwillingness to accept the reality that a woman that they are attracted to/desire is not attracted to/does not desire them. But it's not the woman's fault that she is not attracted to him, it just is what it is.
"Even married men recognize the importance of Game--Roissy's blog is full of people who claim how the art of learning the neg, push-pull, etc. saved their 10+ year long marriage. Check out Athol Kay's blog for another example of this, though again, don't tell him I sent you (I don't want to get involved in more e-wars)."
ReplyDeleteWhether something has improved someone's marriage or has simply given one individual a feeling of control over their spouse is a big question here, as you're only hearing from the side of the man, and from the side of the man who is so out of touch with reality and how interpersonal relationships are nurtured that he's seriously consider "the art of the neg" to be a positive thing to introduce into a marriage.
"Negging" has at its heart the idea that toying with another person's insecurities can help get you what you want. This is not only profoundly misogynist -- as it was developed as something to use *on* women to get them to do something they wouldn't otherwise want to do, ie entertain your attentions -- it is just profoundly jerky. If you respect other people as individuals you don't try to use their insecurities against them. This *cannot* make a relationship stronger, I am sorry. It is the very definition of bad interpersonal relation.
Thanks, M, and it was a very harsh truth for me, as although I laid out a generic barebones scenario (one that rings true with many women I have spoken to or have read about) that was rather tame in its narrative, if I fleshed out the story of my "worst date from hell", it would end with my requesting and (Thank god!) receiving a transfer from the company that I worked (and still am working) for, so that I could relocate to another city in order to escape the nightmare of being someone's "unreality" obsession. And this was all put in motion after having met him during an hour-long visit at a friend's house. Now, if some men want to say that I have to change the way in which I turn someone down for a date, they are absolutely right... I need to tell the "creep" to get the f out of my face when they won't take "no" for an answer.
ReplyDeletePam:
ReplyDeleteGood observation. I honestly have come to think, from reading the blogs and websites of the MRA's who post here (and Scarecrow, who's not an MRA because MRA's hate men), that we may be mostly making fun of men who are harmless people with the unfortunate combination of active libidos and persistent developmental disorders.
That would be kind of mean, and not worth doing. However, if there is something important to be reiterated in these discussions, it's that the insinuation that women should be nicer to men who come on to them and won't hear a polite "no" is absolutely wrong and cuts against everything we know about how to protect yourself from dangerous people.
When someone doesn't hear a polite "no" the next step is a forceful "no." Anything less is opening yourself up to danger. Failure to hear "no" is, by itself, a warning sign for antisocial behavior.
"For those of us who aren't feminists and/or progressives, then, your worldview merely seems quixotic and impractical, and not something to be taken seriously, in that case. Reality is what it is. You bend to it by surrender or by force, but you bend to it one way or the other."
ReplyDeletesorry, but that's just stupid. social reality is changing all the goddamn time. if you cannot take that historical fact seriously, i really can't help you.
"You can't really argue that Game is inherently misogynistic, at least not in any way anyone who's not a "feminist" or "progressive" would find meaningful."
why would I care about whether someone who doesn't believe in progress and equality of women things something is or isn't misogynist? When some social thing harms, denigrates, or endangers women specifically, it's misogynist regardless of how many people consider that definition meaningful.
P.S.: I did try to post some links for the stuff you asked me yesterday, but apparently that's a no-go, since the post disappeared. sorry.
I completely agree with everyone's comments on creepiness being embodied in refusing to take a rejection for what it is. But could someone please elaborate on how it's possible to be 'tricked' into having sex with someone? This is a genuine query. I presume women have agency in the process of deciding who to sleep with...? Certainly, they might make poor decisions because they have insecurities, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to anyone who thinks the best response to a put-down from a man is to sleep with him.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I really don't understand why a woman's decision to sleep with a jerk is completely the fault of the jerk. I'm really curious as to what others think on this one, and looking forward to David's promised post on the subject.
sorry, but that's just stupid. social reality is changing all the goddamn time. if you cannot take that historical fact seriously, i really can't help you.
ReplyDeletelol. In that case, one could just as easily say that Game is part of that changing social reality (it's not as if it's existed forever--the rise of the 'pick up' subculture is a fairly recent phenomenon) and attempts to discredit it simply ignore history. Game works, therefore it's just an idea/method whose time has come. No more, no less.
why would I care about whether someone who doesn't believe in progress and equality of women things something is or isn't misogynist? When some social thing harms, denigrates, or endangers women specifically, it's misogynist regardless of how many people consider that definition meaningful.
If you don't care, why have you eve bothered to argue with the MRAs and other 'misogynists' and 'non-progressives?' on here? And as for your definition of misogyny, suffice it to say that in itself is debatable--for the reasons I've explained above, many Gamers would say their technique doesn't harm women, at least not specifically, and others would say it's simply leveling the playing field or whatever.
In any case, thank you for your efforts in finding me the links, and I apologize for the trouble. Mr. Futrelle, I have to ask, have you considered moving your blog? I think blogger is hands-down the worst service I've ever seen. Nearly anything would be better--wordpress, livejournal, ANYTHING.
"lol. In that case, one could just as easily say that Game is part of that changing social reality (it's not as if it's existed forever--the rise of the 'pick up' subculture is a fairly recent phenomenon) and attempts to discredit it simply ignore history. Game works, therefore it's just an idea/method whose time has come. No more, no less."
ReplyDeleteum... duh? backlash to progress is a well-established phenomenon. status-quo supporting phenomena emerging within a culture are also well-established.
The difference is that some of these changes make things worse, some make things better. You'd have to be a nihilist to think it's all the same.
"If you don't care, why have you eve bothered to argue with the MRAs and other 'misogynists' and 'non-progressives?' on here?"
because I suffer from what's called SIWOTI Syndrome (google it if you don't know what it means). Besides, part of making a positive cultural change happen is to spread the ideas as far and wide as possible, and counteract those things that cause negative changes and those that entrench the status-quo. But that doesn't mean that the misunderstanding and ignorance of others is a valid excuse for not using useful and accurate definitions that actually help bring positive change about
backlash to progress is a well-established phenomenon. status-quo supporting phenomena emerging within a culture are also well-established.
ReplyDeleteHaha. The PUAs are "reactionaries" and part of a "backlash" now? Well, if you believe that, I suppose I shouldn't argue overmuch against it--I don't suffer from SIWOTI syndrome, and it may be perhaps uncharitable of me to inflame yours.
The difference is that some of these changes make things worse, some make things better.
That is the question, isn't it? The PUAs would say they're making things better and the feminists are making things worse, while you would say the opposite. I suppose I'll have to wait and see which one of you turns out to be right...
part of making a positive cultural change happen is to spread the ideas as far and wide as possible, and counteract those things that cause negative changes and those that entrench the status-quo.
Perhaps this is true, but spreading your ideas far and wide might not be very effective if you make those ideas look silly in the process as well as making the status-quo look much more attractive to the people you're trying to convince. While I'm sure your denunciations of Game and your definitions of misogyny are very convincing to the other feminists on here who're already convinced, I confess I am unsure of how effective they'd be in convincing MRAs to see the error of their ways, or even to convince people on the fence to go over to your side.
"In other words, I really don't understand why a woman's decision to sleep with a jerk is completely the fault of the jerk. I'm really curious as to what others think on this one, and looking forward to David's promised post on the subject."
ReplyDeleteDid anyone explicitly say it is the "fault" of one party? Obviously if the interactions are all consensual no one is at "fault," but PUA techniques advance an idea that women must be nudged and gamed into doing what *you* want of them, not what they want to do themselves. If this weren't so, there would be no "Game" to begin with; its very existence arose because the men who study the techniques couldn't get women to talk to them on their own merits, meaning that beneath it all the women they were approaching, for whatever reason, really weren't all that interested in them. To arm yourself with a bunch of manipulations that prey on insecurities that have been drummed into women the same way socialization puts immense pressures and insecurities on and in men is a very dishonest way to get people to do what you *want* them to do, not what they might want to do. In that way, PUAs are tricking women into bed, but that doesn't mean that, assuming it's all consensual, the woman isn't agreeing to the interaction.
thevagrantsvoice, if someone's interest is in something other than equal rights, I'd say from their perspective feminists *are* making things worse, because rather than looking at the world as a place where all people should be treated equally and without unfair advantages or disadvantages placed on them these people are looking at the world with themselves in the center and judging everything on whether or not it is best for self-interest. Feminism, the history of feminism, has done tremendous good in the world and has made things that much more fair for women, and has made strides to make things better for men too -- part of my feminism is a belief that the best parent for the job should get the child, not the woman just because child rearing has been long viewed -- due to "patriarchy" -- as "woman's work. I would like to see more men get custody. I would like to see more men feel free to be stay at home dads if they would like, without some sort of denigration of that chose as not being a "macho" one. Feminism is a human rights movement first and foremost. Like other human rights movements, such as the civil rights movement, for example, it has done a lot of good for the more dominant classes in society. White people are better people thanks t the civil rights movement. Feminism should, by its goals, help improve the rights of men, too.
ReplyDeleteIf you just judge these movements by how they have benefited or harmed your ability to get your selfish needs above all, they will look harmful to you because you're looking at the world from a selfish and ignorant place. Feminism has made women more comfortable about standing up and saying no to men who *want* things from them, and things like PUA have grown out of that, as a selfish backlash to the genuine strides toward human rights feminism has made.
In that way, it is very much a reactionary movement. As the world moves forward, those who think in a largely selfish way engage in backlash out of resentment that the world is changing.
Feminism has reduced the incidence of rape. It has given women more economic freedom, and if we are all to be equal in this world that is a very good thing. Women are more comfortable saying what they do or not want in world that for thousands of years insisted that they not express their wishes or act on them, because they were not fully human in the same way men were. If a movement springs up to try to re-introduce some of those control mechanisms in order to get women to do what *you* want above all, that is by definition a reactionary, backlashy movement.
It also speaks very poorly of the men who would eagerly join it without thinking about where it came from and what it truly means.
Jade -- You mentioned a post of yours with links going missing. I unspam-filtered a comment or two earlier, and I think that comment must have been one of them, as there IS a comment from you with links in it above. They look like pretty useful links as well.
ReplyDeleteI recommend scrolling up and looking at it for anyone who might have missed it before.
PUA techniques advance an idea that women must be nudged and gamed into doing what *you* want of them, not what they want to do themselves.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that PUA is less about "getting" women to do things and more about making a man desirable to them--which, in that sense, is no more "manipulative" than a woman using makeup/perfume to make herself more desirable to men. Most PUAs would tell you that women don't like boring, humorless, charmless guys. If you become a fun, funny, witty, and charming guy, and women who would previously reject you now like you, is that "manipulation?"
Feminism has made women more comfortable about standing up and saying no to men who *want* things from them, and things like PUA have grown out of that, as a selfish backlash to the genuine strides toward human rights feminism has made.
Your assessment of Game, in my view, is vastly incorrect, if I may be forgiven for saying so. Many PUAs who oppose feminism do so on philosophical grounds--in their view, it's bad for society as a whole. However, they often say that on an individual level, it's very, very good for those who know Game, like they do. As Ferdinand Bardamu once said,
If my penis ever does learn how to use a keyboard and mouse, In Mala Fide will turn into the most rabidly pro-feminist blog that ISN’T written by a woman.
To say their opposition to feminism comes from mere self-interest is not really correct.
And as for the supposedly benevolent and "unquestionably good" nature of 'true feminism,' I won't argue against that, because our host is a feminist and I don't desire to be a gratuitous guest. I will merely say that many men and women--some MRAs, some not, disagree, for a variety of reasons. For some of the most extreme MRAs, yes, they view women as biologically "not fully human." For others, however, they think feminism is about hatred and oppression of males rather than equality between the sexes. You may disagree, but you can't accuse *those* people of being as outrightly selfish and misogynistic as the "women are subhuman" crowd.
thevagrantsvoice, women actually don't use makeup to be desirable to men any more than they do to feel good about themselves--it is a sad fact that we are socialized to view our very worth as people by how conventionally pretty we appear rather than about anything that is self-determined or related to anything about ourselves beyond our bodies, and I can tell you quite honestly that when I wear makeup or have worn makeup in the past, men are not or were not on my mind.
ReplyDelete'If you become a fun, funny, witty, and charming guy, and women who would previously reject you now like you, is that "manipulation?"'
There is no way to learn to be witty. You are either witty or you are not. You can learn a bunch of lines that are no more clever or earnest-sounding than "What's your sign?" but that won't make you witty. Neither can you learn to be "fun." PUA is about mimicking certain behaviors in order to get what you want from others.
"To say their opposition to feminism comes from mere self-interest is not really correct."
What feminism truly is is the belief that women are human beings of equal worth and complexity to men, and I think hating feminism and recasting it as mam-hating evil while also devoting significant amounts of one's time to learning tactics of manipulation and lingo that rates and objectifies women based on how valuable they are to *you* as a sex object probably has a lot of self-interest. Feminism is opposed to everything "game" is in that it insists we view women as simply human, simply individuals, and "game" ludicrously essentializes women and their psychology.
As far as whether or not feminism is good or not and who would agree, remember that feminism is one of the most misunderstood and incorrectly vilified movements around. As to this:
"others, however, they think feminism is about hatred and oppression of males rather than equality between the sexes. You may disagree, but you can't accuse *those* people of being as outrightly selfish and misogynistic as the "women are subhuman" crowd."
I certainly can. What would you call someone who detests the civil rights movement and thinks it's about black people oppressing white people? Would you not suspect some manner of racism on their part?
I would also suggest that people who think that about feminism are ignorant and probably not very well equipped to have an opinion on it at all if they think that.
And I do believe that view is selfish. To view a movement for human rights of a long-oppressed
class of people that way is most definitely rooted in selfishness, as that human rights movement threatens unearned and unequal privileges those people think are just theirs inherently. Wanting to hold on to unequal power is selfish, just as people railing against the civil rights movement wanted to selfishly hold on to power they were given at the *expense* of others.
For thousands of years we as humans have lived in a culture that privileges some people by virtue of WHAT they are and gives them that power at the expense of others. Pick your group here: minorities, disabled people, gay people, women, you name it. Every time these people try to make the world more fair, the people who were given power above and beyond others, and for no reason, and at those others' expense, vilify those movements for selfish reasons, whether they realize how selfish their thinking is or not.
"The PUAs would say they're making things better and the feminists are making things worse, while you would say the opposite. I suppose I'll have to wait and see which one of you turns out to be right..."
ReplyDeleteor we can study these things. this is not a matter of opinion. the social sciences can give answers to these questions, you know.
"Perhaps this is true, but spreading your ideas far and wide might not be very effective if you make those ideas look silly in the process as well as making the status-quo look much more attractive to the people you're trying to convince. While I'm sure your denunciations of Game and your definitions of misogyny are very convincing to the other feminists on here who're already convinced, I confess I am unsure of how effective they'd be in convincing MRAs to see the error of their ways, or even to convince people on the fence to go over to your side. "
someone who's already an MRA is a lost cause. it's not them I care to convince of anything.
"which, in that sense, is no more "manipulative" than a woman using makeup/perfume to make herself more desirable to men."
do you think men find make-upped women "naturally" more attractive? and more importantly, do you seriously think feminists support the fact that women have to spend shitloads of money and time on becoming conventionally beautiful? hell, do you think most women enjoy constantly dieting, worrying about your looks, etc blah blah?
"I will merely say that many men and women--some MRAs, some not, disagree, for a variety of reasons. "
and they're empirically wrong. again, this is not a question of opinion.
"You may disagree, but you can't accuse *those* people of being as outrightly selfish and misogynistic as the "women are subhuman" crowd. "
no, they're merely ignorant and possibly selfish in the "can't be bothered with other people's problems" way
Jadehawk,
ReplyDeleteWhile I thank you very much for your efforts in getting me those links, I must confess that I remain...somewhat unconvinced. First off: In general, Gamers would say that Game does indeed work on most women, *including* the, uh, "less conventionally attractive" ones. While they would encourage their adherents to aim their sights higher, they would say that even if you'd want to bed these fat/ugly girls, you'd still need at least a bit of Game.
Now, if I may be permitted to address each article individually:
#1: This fails by not specifying how large these groups of "invisible women" are. Gamers would say that the amount of women too fat/old/ugly (forgive my bluntness) to get laid represent a vanishingly small percentage of the female population, like maybe 10%. On the other hand, it's the opposite for guys--Gamers would say about 80% of all males, no matter what, would be unable to get laid without Game. This article hardly refutes that.
#2: Gamers would say this completely misses the point. Men are attracted to one thing, and one thing only: Physical appearance. Women are less attracted to physical appearance and more attracted to humor, among other things. "An ability like humor" would be utterly useless for an unattractive woman, therefore, it wouldn't have been selected for. It has nothing to do with female oppression or "men not being comfortable with funny women" or whatever. (not necessarily saying I agree with this, merely that this is what the Gamers would say)
#3: Again, Gamers would say that even if one is into older ladies, they still need Game to attract them. I don't see how this article refutes that.
#4: This is interesting, but ironically enough confirms something I've heard Gamers say--men who are very highly ranked in terms of physical attractiveness need to employ different tactics to approach girls who are several ranks below them (such girls, undoubtedly being the subjects of cruelty when they were younger, will automatically be very suspicious of someone higher in the hierarchy approaching them). Once again, this tends to support rather than refute the things I've heard PUAs say.
Finally, in reference to this, the same applies--Roissy himself has admitted that in his view, black men tend to like "bigger" women, and still says that some variant of Game is necessary if you want to attract the plus-size ladies. I'm not sure how this book refutes that.
the social sciences can give answers to these questions, you know..and they're empirically wrong. again, this is not a question of opinion.
ReplyDeleteI would ask you how, exactly, the 'social sciences' or any other empirical source validates your view as opposed to theirs, but since I've already asked for much of your time, I suppose I shouldn't impose any further.
someone who's already an MRA is a lost cause. it's not them I care to convince of anything.
In that case, if I may ask, who, exactly, do you care to convince/convert? Aside from fellow feminists, of course.
ore importantly, do you seriously think feminists support the fact that women have to spend shitloads of money and time on becoming conventionally beautiful? hell, do you think most women enjoy constantly dieting, worrying about your looks, etc blah blah?
No, but I would be surprised if feminists commonly called women "evil" and "misandrists" for doing so.
"In that case, if I may ask, who, exactly, do you care to convince/convert? Aside from fellow feminists, of course."
ReplyDeletePeople who aren't irrationally devoted to an illogical and resentment-fueled worldview are actually pretty open to basic ideas about human rights. The small cohort of people who can't be reasoned with because they have abandoned all reason will always think what they think.
People who aren't irrationally devoted to an illogical and resentment-fueled worldview are actually pretty open to basic ideas about human rights.
ReplyDeleteHm. Well, all I can say is that as someone who isn't an MRA and has expressed repeatedly his distrust of the Men's Rights Movement, I must, with all respect, confess to being for the most part unconvinced by yours and Jadehawk's arguments.
I suppose you might say I'm still 'irrational' and 'illogical,' and lack the sufficient openness to basic ideas about human rights. Perhaps you're right. Still, I'm sure I'm not the only 'vagrant' on here--there are probably one or two other folks 'round these parts who find themselves sitting on a fence between the feminists and the MRAs. Perhaps their opinions on how effective you are as advocates for feminism would be more valuable than mine. My apologies for taking your time, then.
I'm not trying to be an advocate for feminism on this blog, as I've read many comments and for the most part think the MRA-sympathetic who post here are hilarious but definitely not worth efforts to reach.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I wouldn't say feminists and MRAs are opposite ends of a spectrum. I would put feminism on the mirror end of something like the fathers rights movement, which I think has a lot of positive aspects and is based on a desire to change real, measurable issues rather than on misapprehension. The MRA movement is just all misapprehension. I'd put it on the other end of the spectrum of pure misandry, which isn't something I have ever encountered in feminism. Perhaps some others have, but it's not a kind of foundational aspect of feminism. MRAs are truly shooting at windmills of their own imagination.
Feminism is actually very broad and encompasses huge amounts of viewpoints. If you're dubious of MRAs I can't imagine that there aren't things you would agree with feminism on.
If you're dubious of MRAs I can't imagine that there aren't things you would agree with feminism on.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few things I agree with feminism on--though it's hard to "agree with feminism" in any sense, since you feminists yourselves have often told me that feminism is such a broad, multifaceted movement (ask a 100 different feminists something and you'll get a 100 different answers, etc).
As the old saying goes, however, a broken clock is right twice a day. The fact that I can see some good, here and there, in feminism and among feminists (much like I can see some good, here and there, among MRAs) does not mean I cannot consider the movement/ideology/whatever as a whole to be something to stay away from. Nothing you or Jadehawk has so far said has convinced me otherwise. Still, if it wasn't your intent, since you aren't an advocate for feminism, I suppose it's no loss...in which case I again apologize for taking your time.
(Did I miss your comment above or did it go in the spam filter? Oh well...)
ReplyDeleteThere is no way to learn to be witty. You are either witty or you are not. You can learn a bunch of lines that are no more clever or earnest-sounding than "What's your sign?" but that won't make you witty. Neither can you learn to be "fun."
I suppose there's no arguing with this. If you sincerely believe this, all I'll say is that it's a sadly bleak view of the capacity for self-improvement. A small solace for me, then, that I cannot say it's been conclusively proven to be true, at least as far as I'm aware.
What feminism truly is is the belief that women are human beings of equal worth and complexity to men
Really? I thought feminism was a broad, multifacted movement that contains many, many things. How can you say what it "truly is?"
What would you call someone who detests the civil rights movement and thinks it's about black people oppressing white people?
If that someone's view of the Civil Rights Movement came from the more violent and extreme elements of, say, the Black Power movement or the Nation of Islam or something like that, I would call them honest but misinformed.
Vagrant, I think feminism does represent a lot of things, mostly under the banner of concern over issues affecting women, but equality with men is one of the bedrocks of the movement. I don't think you'll find any self-defined feminist who thinks that women shouldn't vote or own property, for instance. (Some of the more egregiously sexist MRAs apparently disagree). I also think that the MRM represents a spectrum of opinions and goals, some of which might have some validity, but most of which seems far removed from reality (just my opinion; I haven't spent too much time reading MRA sites, mostly because they focus on whinging about feminism more than promoting any actual agenda).
ReplyDeleteBut I actually agree with vagrant on 'game', if his explanation is accurate. If men think they'll up their chances with women by dressing smartly and learning some basic banter, that's not terribly sinister. And however much I agree with you that *feminists* question the social pressures that cause women to wear makeup and flirty dresses when they go out on the town, there are an overwhelming number who do--just go into any club for verification (this is why most intelligent, non-superficial women and men avoid the club scene like the plague). If men and women adopt similar techniques to get noticed, then neither is really more manipulative than the other.
I also understand that game involves some basic psychological manipulation, but then, so does all advertising--if someone bought a car because the commercial said it would make them feel like a cowboy, you'd probably wonder more about their reasoning abilities than about classing the car manufacturer as prejudiced. Every day we're subjected to thousands of messages trying to influence us into doing things we wouldn't normally do, or to buy things we don't normally buy; we're all capable and equipped to evaluate those messages on their own merits.
There's a fundamental tension here.
ReplyDeleteGuys show up on feminist sites, here, all over the place talking about how wonderful the PUA Game is, and how that's the way to get lots of sex and be happy.
But then those same guys seem to be constantly seething with resentment of women. To put it in the style that seems to be favored by MRA-ers, I'd say there's a couple possibilities here:
1) Game is not, in fact, working, and these PUA-boosters are still not getting laid.
2) Game is "working" in that it's getting these guys laid, but they are still unsatisfied because there is some additional level of intimacy they are after that they can't really identify.
If 1), then you should try something else. If 2), then you should consider whether your approach to getting sex is preventing you from getting the intimacy that you want.
The more I read about it, the more the PUA Game reminds me of a fad diet. Lots of people swearing they've found the long-term solution to obesity, very few thin people saying it's what got them there.
"Really? I thought feminism was a broad, multifacted movement that contains many, many things. How can you say what it 'truly is?'"
ReplyDeleteBecause at its core this is the fundamental belief of all feminists regardless of where they find themselves falling on other more complex questions. All feminists believe that women are human beings of equal worth and complexity to men and must be treated that way in society. I mentioned the broadness of feminism because there are mainstream and radical elements. Just because you might not agree with the more radical wings doesn't mean feminism is that far out of your worldview. Do you think women are human beings who deserve equality? You're thinking bedrock feminist thoughts.
I will continue to disagree with your argument that one can learn to be witty. Self-improvement is a very real thing, but a quick wit is part of one's personality and if you're learning "wit" from Game you are learning tactics, not wit. Wit, I believe, is somewhat inborn. This does not mean I don't believe in self-improvement. I would argue that learning Game is not improving oneself, though. I will admit that it may help you get what you *want* more often, but that is not the same as self-improvement.
"
If that someone's view of the Civil Rights Movement came from the more violent and extreme elements of, say, the Black Power movement or the Nation of Islam or something like that, I would call them honest but misinformed."
But what would lead a person to so misunderstand a fundamental human rights movement as to only focus on its militant wings in order to better denounce it? I would call that person racist in their intent, whether they consciously realize it or not, because they're willfully choosing not to understand the movement as a whole and have decided to vilify it base on its most easily vilified elements, and that returns us to the question: why is there a need to vilify a human rights movement at all?
A: Because it threatens their unequal and unearned power. As I said elsewhere on here, for people who talk a *lot* about feminism MRAs don't know *anything* about feminism. If you spend that much energy talking about it you could easily spend a little time knowing what it is rather than vilifying it entirely--the point is that they *want* to vilify it, just as people who view civil rights only through its militant black power wings want to vilify civil rights.
Seriously, the things I see MRAs saying are *feminist* are not even remotely related to feminism.
By the way vagrantsvoice I wrote a lengthy comment to you last night that got caught in the spam filter in case you didn't see it. It started with my take on makeup and how it isn't *just* about attracting men--it can be about *having worth* in a society that tells you from birth that if you aren't a pretty princess you are beneath contempt, and sometimes men or male attention doesn't even cross a woman's mind when she chooses to wear makeup or fix her hair or diet or do any of these things that we're told we *have* to do to feel good about ourselves. I can say honestly that when I do these things male attention doesn't even enter my mind, and in fact I really wish men would leave me alone because I'm in a happy relationship of about 15 years and am not all that fond of having people interrupt my life and act as though I owe them attention. And trust me...a lot of guys act that way. If you brush them off or tell them you're not interested you're just as likely to get some sort of nasty dehumanizing comment as you are to have someone politely accept that you have a right turn someone down.
ReplyDeleteIf men and women adopt similar techniques to get noticed, then neither is really more manipulative than the other.
ReplyDeleteAnd that, to me, is a fair statement. Both sexes are playing to the other's vanities and/or shallowness in order to get noticed.
But (and this is not directed at anyone in particular) don't condemn most women for being vain, shallow, manipulative creatures while soundly denying similar traits among most men, especially when you've just listed those similar traits that are shared among most men (as vagrantsvoice pointed out, gamers would say that men are attracted to one thing, and one thing only: physical appearance) ... that's a portion of what makes me unsupportive of most MRAs and the MRM, not my "inner man-hater". I do not accept that male shallowness is somehow far more noble than female shallowness.
But then those same guys seem to be constantly seething with resentment of women.
Yes, because they resent having to "jump through hoops" to attract a woman, ignoring (save for when ridiculing) the fact that most women have to "jump through hoops" (allbeit, perhaps, a different set of hoops) to attract a man. All a woman has to do, apparently, is show up to the party sporting a beautiful face and a body that just won't quit, and she can have any man she wants, so the resentment of that is placed on the shoulders of all women. A couple of problems with resenting all women for that is:
a) most women are NOT born that drop-dead gorgeous with killer bods
b) male shallowness/superficiality is not women's fault
A couple of things.
ReplyDeleteFirst, more apologies for anyone who's gotten caught in the spam filter. There are a lot of things I like about Blogger, but the spam filter, which can't be turned off, isn't one of them. Please be patient; it's not usually this bad.
Second: Raul, I like the comparison of Game to a fad diet. A couple of years ago there were tons of geeks going on versions of the paleo diet, and going on and on about how they'd figured out the eternal secret of how to lose weight. I wonder how many have managed to keep the weight off. Probably not many.
And vagrant, this comment of yours: "Gamers would say about 80% of all males, no matter what, would be unable to get laid without Game."
True, Gamers do say things like this. But this is obviously completely false, and every single study of sexuality ever done refutes this absurd claim. By the Gamer logic, then, most men in relationships or married are completely celibate and/or still virgins, and most women are refusing to have sex EVER with their boyfriends/husbands and ONLY having sex with alpha gamers.
If 80% of all males are unable to get laid without game I have no idea how we're here in 2010 as a species talking about game. If I recall correctly, human procreation has a little something to do with men getting laid.
ReplyDeletevagrant, you missed my point. it wasn't that Game wouldn't work on these women. It's that it isn't being used on them because men don't notice the existence of these women. They're vaguely human-shaped blobs, part of the furniture/landscape. Hell, they sometimes don't even aspire to "obstacles to get around in airports" (multiple women I know, after observing that it's almost always women who step aside when people are about to run into each other, stopped stepping aside, to see if the men would. often, they'd barrel right into them, looking confused, as if they've only now noticed there even was a person there).
ReplyDeleteJames Triptee wrote an awesome story on that subject, that conveys that sentiment
""Gamers would say about 80% of all males, no matter what, would be unable to get laid without Game.""
yes, they would say stuff like that. but unless they're members of the FLDS, they're talking out of their asses. Very few men die virgins. Not even all Catholic Priests do (and no, I'm actually not talking about rape, but about the many priests who fuck their house-cleaners or other female workers in the parish).
If 80% of all males are unable to get laid without game I have no idea how we're here in 2010 as a species talking about game. If I recall correctly, human procreation has a little something to do with men getting laid.
ReplyDeleteI guess we all must be the progeny of the 20% of males who DO get laid......y'know..... the ALPHA males....
And the children of Beta males? Heh heh, well, they are the progeny of the Alpha males, too......y'know.....cuckoldry and all....
"If 80% of all males are unable to get laid without game I have no idea how we're here in 2010 as a species talking about game. If I recall correctly, human procreation has a little something to do with men getting laid."
ReplyDeleteyou forget that we're not humans, but rather human-shaped wolves, where only one man per tribe gets to fuck. Ask a geneticist, he'll confirm it. ;-)
Because at its core this is the fundamental belief of all feminists regardless of where they find themselves falling on other more complex questions. All feminists believe that women are human beings of equal worth and complexity to men and must be treated that way in society.
ReplyDeleteAll feminists? Again, considering how many feminists there are, I would be surprised if you've spoken to "all" feminists and assured yourself that "all," or even a hard majority of them necessarily agreed with that. Some might say that no, their bedrock belief is that women are *more* human and thus deserve *more* rights than men. How, exactly, can you assure me that this belief is merely 'fringe?'
why is there a need to vilify a human rights movement at all?
Because every sort of scoundrel and villain can find cover for their misdeeds under the umbra of "human rights." Look at how many racist white organizations have campaigned not under the banner of overt hatred but under the auspices of "fairness" and "white rights." Yes, you'd say, "that just proves my point! They're oppressors! The black rights/women's rights/whatever movement I happen to like are the *true* good guys!"
However, why should I or anyone else believe that? Many oppressed people want revenge, after all. When looking at the Civil Rights Movement (and keep in mind I myself am a "person of color"), or feminism, it's not unreasonable to ask whether or not the oppressed groups merely want liberation, or whether or not they want an opportunity to turn the tables on their oppressors. Do you want "equal rights?" Or do you merely want your turn to crack the whip? It's not an unreasonable question.
It wasn't that Game wouldn't work on these women. It's that it isn't being used on them because men don't notice the existence of these women.
The words of the Gamers themselves would tend to refute this. Whether or not 'conventionally unattractive' women are invisible to most men, PUAs have often related stories about bedding "warpigs," "fatties," and other 'conventionally unattractive' women who are, according to their laments, supposedly invisible. Hell, Tucker Max fucked girls ranging from the morbidly obese to a midget (I'm not kidding). Whatever the case may be for most guys, I'm not sure it's a point you can levy against the Gamers.
""Gamers would say about 80% of all males, no matter what, would be unable to get laid without Game.""
ReplyDeleteIn reference to this statement, I must apologize--it was a poorly worded, off the cuff misstatement of the PUA position, and I apologize for that--both to you for confusing you and to the MRAs/PUAs for misconveying their position.
I think a more accurate statement would be something like, "80% of men would be unable to get laid without *any game whatsoever, and in the absence of other factors like money.*
First off, Game isn't an either-or proposition. It's not whether you have it or you don't--you can have expert game, good game, decent game, bad game, and then no game at all. Only a minority of men, I think a lot of PUAs would argue, have *no* game at all. The vast majority of men, however, have it to some degree. The 'naturals' have excellent game, and enjoy all the pussy they want. Other guys have it decently to poorly. Thus, they're not all celibate, they just don't get laid as much as the naturals/experts.
That, and as the PUAs will also admit, Game can help a man to get laid, but it isn't the sole arbiter of his luck either. Women are (in their view) also attracted to money/resources/status, so even someone with poor game who's rich and famous can attract women. Indeed, someone doesn't even necessarily have to be rich and famous, but comparatively wealthy (a middle-class guy among poor rural girls, for instance) to have a shot with women, even with poor Game.
This, I think, is a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the PUA position.
"This, I think, is a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the PUA position. "
ReplyDeletewhich indeed confirms that it's a misogynist one, treating women like non-humans (since humans actually care about such things like personality and common interests, and occasionally even honestly fall in love with someone who "objectively" has nothing to offer)
the alternative is that they're misanthropes in general, and think both men and women are shallow, personality-less, instinct-driven animals whose whole existence is focused on getting laid and getting married, respectively
the alternative is that they're misanthropes in general, and think both men and women are shallow, personality-less, instinct-driven animals whose whole existence is focused on getting laid and getting married, respectively
ReplyDeleteWomen are vile creatures at heart, just as men are.
Vagrant, I think the 80% thing is a revealing slip on your part. Because so many PUAs (not to mention incels) seem to actually think that's the way things work, that a small minority of men are having 80% (or some equally high percentage) of the sex in the world, and that all women (or at least all women visible to them) are madly fucking alphas/jocks/bad boys etc while making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright.
ReplyDeleteA lot of guys in the "manosphere" really seem to think that alpha guys -- and most women -- live in some kind of crazy sexual utopia from which most men are excluded utterly. And then, after having convinced themselves that this ridiculous fantasy is true, they get really really angry at women for "mistreating" them in this way.
so WHY am I supposed to take a misanthrope seriously?
ReplyDeleteand more importantly, why should I take someone seriously who tells clearly non-monogamous women to pretend to be monogamous?
ReplyDeletethese women, and their male equivalents, belong in the poly community, not to spouses who thought they got into a mutually monogamous relationship.
Vagrantsvoice, you've brought up a lot of things and I am going to have to address them in more than one comment, in bits and pieces rather than in one big chunk. First:
ReplyDelete"Because every sort of scoundrel and villain can find cover for their misdeeds under the umbra of "human rights." Look at how many racist white organizations have campaigned not under the banner of overt hatred but under the auspices of "fairness" and "white rights." Yes, you'd say, "that just proves my point! They're oppressors! The black rights/women's rights/whatever movement I happen to like are the *true* good guys!"
However, why should I or anyone else believe that?"
What you are missing here is that racism, sexism, all these -isms various human rights movements fight are more than just relational ideas about who gets control of what and what one group things about another. Racism is race hatred PLUS historical, economic, political, social, structures. Sexism is gender hatred/gender superiority PLUS those same factors. A white supremacy/white rights movement is pretending to fight against racism but there is genuinely no racism, by definition, in the things they are fighting. They may be fighting some sort of prejudicial ideas on the parts of some minorities but racism requires power behind it to be racism more than just "shitty opinions of others based on what they are rather than who they are."
This is why I said I would class feminism with something like the fathers rights movement rather than as the opposite end of the spectrum from MRAs, as fathers rights is about demonstrable, observable phenomena in the world and the ways a patriarchal system has stacked the deck against fathers in the court system. Of course I use patriarchal (or kyriarchical) there because that's a handy term for the *institutionalized* gender equality in the world that hurts men and women, but fathers rights activists may not use that word. The point is that they are fighting something real, whereas MRAs in my experience are the equivalent of your hypothetical "white rights" activists who want to claim that attitudes and prejudices against their group somehow equals the institutional oppression that must be present to call something "racist" or "sexist."
Point blank: petty hatreds of the privileged class come with no institutional support and are not threatening, are not racist, are not sexist. Whatever small contingent of feminists there are out there that "hate men" do not have any real power or institutional structure behind their thinking and are truly a straw man -- straw feminist! -- argument of the worst sort.
Part 2, part 1 may be spam filtered at the moment (and this one might not make it through for a while either!):
ReplyDelete"All feminists? Again, considering how many feminists there are, I would be surprised if you've spoken to "all" feminists and assured yourself that "all," or even a hard majority of them necessarily agreed with that. Some might say that no, their bedrock belief is that women are *more* human and thus deserve *more* rights than men. How, exactly, can you assure me that this belief is merely 'fringe?'"
Okay pretending that this straw feminist contingent is worth all the scrutiny you want to give it, I would say that to be "superior," to be the "oppressor class," one must first not be disadvantaged. You cannot go from being a disadvantaged, repressed and diminished class of people to being the oppressor overnight, and even if there *are* some truly nutty feminists out there who believe women are superior -- and I hate that I even have to explain this, but I have not encountered these mysterious creatures -- they are lacking any power to make this happen. They are not a threat, as they are not yet even part of a *truly equal* class.
To get there they would have to believe that women must be made equal. So yes, even these people, who are not anyone I have encountered in feminism and who largely exist in the minds and hypotheticals of people who want to vilify a genuine human fights movement, would have to believe in the fundamental equality of women before they could ever obtain their evil, fictional goals.
But that was all a lot of words to say that, yes, the belief that women are equal to men and deserve to be treated as equals in this world is a bedrock belief shared across all feminisms. And if you are as concerned about fairness and having an honest argument as you appear to be I hope you will consider this suggestion: it is actually quite rude to hijack a discussion of someone's beliefs to insist that the discussion focus on some extreme and largely hypothetical group of people rather than on the vast majority of feminists and their real beliefs, one of which is that equality is important and has not yet been reached.
this is in fact one of the ways in which the whole PUA thing is counterproductive and just serves to enshrine a status quo: assuming that cultural standards for relationships are correct, and trying to find a niche in them (even if it's a niche that exists only because such one-size-fits-all standards are inhumane, thus leading to misogyny or misanthropy, as well as lots of hurt feelings), instead of telling the social standards to go fuck themselves and negotiate relationships that benefit everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteBecause so many PUAs (not to mention incels) seem to actually think that's the way things work, that a small minority of men are having 80% (or some equally high percentage) of the sex in the world, and that all women (or at least all women visible to them) are madly fucking alphas/jocks/bad boys etc while making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright.
ReplyDeleteEven in reference to the most negative assessment of the PUA worldview I mistakenly provided above, one could argue that it's closer to the mark than many (myself included) would care to admit. 80% was undoubtedly an overstatement, but for evidence that many if not most women are only having sex with a small number of men, PUAs would argue that 80% of women have managed to reproduce throughout history while only 40% of men have managed to pass on their genes, and that twice as many women as men have herpes, which means that either it's much easier for women to get the disease or that a small group of men is, as Roissy put it, "giving the gift" to a larger group of women.
Personally, I disagree with this analysis (for instance, in reference to only 40% of men having passed on their genes, I would wager this is a function of more men dying before fathering children--killed by predators in hunting, dying in war, etc.--than female "hypergamy" or whatever), but I wouldn't say it's *entirely* without evidence.
so WHY am I supposed to take a misanthrope seriously?
A cynic might argue that misanthropes are the only people who deserve to be taken seriously...that's a bit too bleak for even my tastes, though. More relevantly, as I said above, even a broken clock is right twice a day. A misanthropist like Roissy may be wrong about many things, but he might be right when it comes to gender relations. At the very least, from what I've seen he's right when it comes to getting laid...most of my acquaintances who've internalized his methods to some degree have met with greater success with women, in some cases markedly so.
"Do you want "equal rights?" Or do you merely want your turn to crack the whip? It's not an unreasonable question."
ReplyDeleteI would sugges it *is* an unreasonable question, because how could minorities or women somehow situate themselves in a place where they can crack the whip without *first* obtaining true socioeconomic and political equilibrium? This is a question to be asked a long time from now, when (I hope) there are fewer disparities. People of color, women, LGBTQ folks, any of these people wanting revenge are simply engaging in fantasies that cannot be made reality in the world we currently live in, and those fantasies should not be used to stop the course of equality, or to question its purpose. These kinds of questions are used to stop the march of human rights, and if we took them as seriously as you want us to there would be no civil-rights or feminist or LGBTQ successes, because that question, that tactic, is employed every single time anyone in a disadvantaged group tries to change the status quo.
"PUAs have often related stories about bedding "warpigs," "fatties," and other 'conventionally unattractive' women who are, according to their laments, supposedly invisible. Hell, Tucker Max fucked girls ranging from the morbidly obese to a midget (I'm not kidding). Whatever the case may be for most guys, I'm not sure it's a point you can levy against the Gamers."
You do know how dehumanizing and misogynistic/ablist these terms and ideas are, yes? Genuine question. This paragraph pretty much proves the inherent misogny you're arguing is not part of Game.
You do know how dehumanizing and misogynistic/ablist these terms and ideas are, yes? Genuine question. This paragraph pretty much proves the inherent misogny you're arguing is not part of Game.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, these guys use these terms because they're assholes, not because they're gamers. Other PUA artists are much more sensitive, and I mean that literally. For instance, there's a story about how Mystery was couching a guy, and his student referred to a woman's "bitch shields." Mystery gently corrected him and told them they were "protection shields," and explained why, from the woman's perspective, she wasn't being unreasonable. That...doesn't sound that misogynistic.
petty hatreds of the privileged class come with no institutional support and are not threatening, are not racist, are not sexist.
The powerful do not always maintain their power, and the powerless may become much stronger with time. You are correct in your assessment of racism as being more than merely 'nasty thoughts' and reliant on the acquisition of actual power (political, military, economic, etc.). However, this assumes that these oppressed groups will *never* gain the sort of institutional support their oppressors had. How do you know this?
The feminists--or the Civil Rights people, or whoever--may not have sufficient power to oppress their oppressors *right now.* Will that be the case in the future? Is it not even a possibility to be considered?
You cannot go from being a disadvantaged, repressed and diminished class of people to being the oppressor overnight, and even if there *are* some truly nutty feminists out there who believe women are superior -- and I hate that I even have to explain this, but I have not encountered these mysterious creatures -- they are lacking any power to make this happen. They are not a threat, as they are not yet even part of a *truly equal* class.
This applies just as easily to MRAs and PUAs as it does to you folks. Roissy doesn't have any power over anybody. He's just some guy with a blog who manages to get laid a lot. The MGTOWers David has exposed on this blog talking about how women are worthless and evil don't have any power either, and they almost never will, due to the fact that they explicitly abjure getting involved in politics or doing much of anything beyond "surviving." If the nutcases of feminism can be shunted under the carpet because they're essentially powerless, why can't the same be done for the nutcases among the MGTOWs or PUAs or whoever?
"The powerful do not always maintain their power, and the powerless may become much stronger with time. You are correct in your assessment of racism as being more than merely 'nasty thoughts' and reliant on the acquisition of actual power (political, military, economic, etc.). However, this assumes that these oppressed groups will *never* gain the sort of institutional support their oppressors had. How do you know this?"
ReplyDeleteI have to ask you again why these kinds of hypotheticals should stop actual *equality* from happening. Why use these kinds of things to halt equal rights? The possibility that one group will overtake another is not an intellectually sound argument for keeping things unequal in favor or the current privileged groups. It just makes no sense. You would prefer the historically dominant classes *maintain* their control forever out of concern that equality might make it *possible* for the historically disadvantaged to some day gain unfair control? This is deeply backward.
two things about the "twice as many women" thing:
ReplyDeleteone, it's not properly sourced; the trail ends at an article that argues against straw-feminism while also using some already refuted and outdated data
two, "twice as many women" already implies that it's not just "alphas" who spawn.
three, it doesn't seem to take rape into account. Before the invention of consent, and before the invention of reliable birth-control, having a single man rape women all over the place will result in one male gene, but plenty of female genes; otoh, a single woman gang-raped, or raped multiple times over the course of a year, still only results on one female and one male gene. for parity, a woman would have to be raped AND impregnated by as many men as a single man managed to impregnate various women. biology makes that a wee bit hard to pull off.
and three, I'll point you back to the FLDS example: patriarchy really does hurt men, too. and the more patriarchal the society, the more it does hurt men. it's quite ironic that it was feminism that liberated women to fuck whomever they wanted, instead of "selling" their virginity to a provider (for themselves as well as their families), thus making it more likely for "betas" to get laid.
It's in fact my observation, from having fucked in several countries, and have known sexually active people from even more countries, that the more feminist a country, the more people get laid more often, with more partners, less judgementally. I've always joked around that if I ever find myself single again, I'll test that hypothesis by fucking my way thru Sweden.
yes, my math sucks. or my editing skills. take your pick ;-)
ReplyDelete"Do you want "equal rights?" Or do you merely want your turn to crack the whip? It's not an unreasonable question."
ReplyDeletethat reminds me of the fear christianists have of teh ebil mooslins taking over (both in the us and in europe): when you consider the tyranny of the majority, and cultural hegemony, as the only right way to run a society, you of course are going to be scared stupid of someone else maybe possibly threatening YOUR position at the top. when oppression is accepted as good and right, one becomes paranoidally worried about becoming the oppressed.
secularists don't have that fear, since they are capable of understanding that a secular society is one that protects the rights of a minority as well as the rights of the majority, while not adopting the religious standards of either. As such, it's irrelevant whether the majority is christian or muslim or atheist or wiccan, because those who aren't in the majority are just as free to follow their religions.
the same goes for "white rights" "men's rights" etc.: groups that are used to hegemonic power, and seeing it as a natural way of running the world, are scared shitless of human rights and equality movements because they view them, through their own paradigms, as attempts to simply reverse roles, instead of destroy the paradigm and the roles altogether.
"This applies just as easily to MRAs and PUAs as it does to you folks. Roissy doesn't have any power over anybody. He's just some guy with a blog who manages to get laid a lot. The MGTOWers David has exposed on this blog talking about how women are worthless and evil don't have any power either, and they almost never will, due to the fact that they explicitly abjure getting involved in politics or doing much of anything beyond "surviving." If the nutcases of feminism can be shunted under the carpet because they're essentially powerless, why can't the same be done for the nutcases among the MGTOWs or PUAs or whoever?"
ReplyDeleteThe reality of privilege is that if you are born a male power is bestowed upon you no matter what you chose to do with it. I am not talking pure political power here, but a complex intersection of powers that mean you are more serious, more worthy, more *human* in the eyes of society. In the same way that my being born white gave me a socioeconomic and even political power above what people of color are born with -- and with it came certain opportunities, certain passes to move about the world a certain way that people of color cannot, even if it comes down to the everyday phenomena of, say, not being followed around a store because a shopkeeper things I am predisposed to shoplifting -- being born male gives men privileges and power they often just take for granted as "the way of the world."
And the things MRAs see as "unfair female privilege" are often the surface effects of this structural inequality feminists and others call "patriarchy" or "kyriarchy," not some sort of genuine structure of female superiority. For example, something like alimony is deeply rooted in the historical structures that have seen women be unpaid home laborers for thousands of years, "working" on a kind of labor that gives them no economic or personal freedom. If patriarchy were truly dismantled, alimony and many of the other things MRAs are so mad about would not be the issue it is today, and yet they can only see the tiny tip of the iceberg of patriarchy that is stubbing their toes. Meanwhile, the rest of the iceberg is crushing women's very personhood, our right to be equal and autonomous people who are not called "warpigs" for simply being ourselves and not caring to spend giant amounts of money and time starving ourselves, primping ourselves, always striving to be *good* by looking the way someone else says we ought to.
Men *do* have power, even the most powerless men, just as I, a woman, have power people of color do not, all because I am white.
You would prefer the historically dominant classes *maintain* their control forever out of concern that equality might make it *possible* for the historically disadvantaged to some day gain unfair control? This is deeply backward.
ReplyDelete*I* didn't say I "preferred" that, I'm merely pointing out that it seems to be a legitimate question. Does giving 'equality' to an oppressed group open up the *possibility* of them gaining power over you someday? If so, it seems like something to legitimately consider if one happens to be a member of the "privileged" group.
Jadehawk, I agree with your critiques of the article (I haven't managed to find the actual study which proved the 40-80% thing, and I've been looking for a while), like I said I found it dubious for the reasons I mentioned earlier (the difference, if it exists, could also be laid at the feet of male fatality rather than hypergamy).
that the more feminist a country, the more people get laid more often, with more partners, less judgementally.
PUAs will admit this--I again quote Ferdinand Bardamu, who said "If my penis ever does learn how to use a keyboard and mouse, In Mala Fide will turn into the most rabidly pro-feminist blog that ISN’T written by a woman." Feminism makes Game much more effective, which means even guys with low Game find themselves with a bit more success than they would have had otherwise. This isn't really much of a critique of Game, though.
The reality of privilege is that if you are born a male power is bestowed upon you no matter what you chose to do with it.
ReplyDeleteYes, yes, I've heard that before. The problem is, most of the really crazy MRAs *outrightly squander* the "power" they were born with. They're not a threat to anybody, even if you think they might have been.
If patriarchy were truly dismantled, alimony and many of the other things MRAs are so mad about would not be the issue it is today, and yet they can only see the tiny tip of the iceberg of patriarchy that is stubbing their toes.
Ironically enough, you do realize that many MRAs, *especially* the MGTOWers, hate patriarchy for similar reasons, right? As Paul Elam said, Let the “patriarchs” of the world have their foolish ways. It matters not to me. I will be busy surviving as they march themselves and their unfortunate progeny into the grinding halls of family justice. We’ll call it intellectual culling, and the world will be better for it.
"Roissy doesn't have any power over anybody. He's just some guy with a blog who manages to get laid a lot. The MGTOWers David has exposed on this blog talking about how women are worthless and evil don't have any power either, and they almost never will, due to the fact that they explicitly abjure getting involved in politics or doing much of anything beyond 'surviving.'"
ReplyDeletethe power is systematic and structural, ingrained in the organization of modern culture, and almost invisible to those who hold it: male privilege 101
white privilege 101 (pdf link)
class privilege 101 (also pdf)
Power is not about being a threat, and I'm not saying their having power makes them a threat to me, though if they are the sort of MRAs who advance ideas about women not really having a right to own their bodies they are making the world more threatening to me. I am saying that they have more socioeconomic currency in the world, more human capital to spend, than I am given by virtue of being a woman. If you were somehow transformed for one week into a woman you would understand what that means, but since that is not possible the only thing I can ask for is empathy and willingness to consider what it must be like to be harassed and belittled -- both by people on the street/in the subway/on the bus/in the workplace *and* by the culture at large -- every second you are awake, by virtue of nothing more than *what* you are.
ReplyDeleteIt is really quite shocking the kind of disadvantages women face. As Jadehawk is saying, for those in the culturally hegemonic classes, it is easy not to understand this because your power means you don't *have* to, and you can consider your knowledge of the world to be the proper one.
"*I* didn't say I "preferred" that, I'm merely pointing out that it seems to be a legitimate question. Does giving 'equality' to an oppressed group open up the *possibility* of them gaining power over you someday? If so, it seems like something to legitimately consider if one happens to be a member of the "privileged" group."
This goes back to the selfishness I was talking about before. It's something to legitimately consider if you selfishly want everything to work to your unfair advantage, if you are truly okay with the world being unequal and cruel so long as it benefits you. It is not something a truly enlightened person should deign to bother with.
I realize that some MRAs and MGTOW types make arguments like that, but from what I've seen they end up blaming patriarchy on women, which is like blaming African Americans for slavery.
the power is systematic and structural, ingrained in the organization of modern culture, and almost invisible to those who hold it
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is. In which case, it'll take a lot more to dismantle structural racism/sexism/whatever than picking on the PUAs, MRAs, and other assorted riffraff on the edges of the 'patriarchy's' power structure. You'd be a lot better off getting involved in politics, concentrating on economic issues facing women and other oppressed groups, etc. than spending so much time and effort on guys who don't and can't do anything besides post on the Internet. You're chipping away at the edges of the "patriarchy" rather than attacking its pillars, so to speak.
"You'd be a lot better off getting involved in politics, concentrating on economic issues facing women and other oppressed groups, etc"
ReplyDeleteThis is what feminism is and does, though! See, right here, you are actually *advocating* feminism and don't even realize it.
"This isn't really much of a critique of Game, though. "
ReplyDeleteit wasn't meant as one; however, the nature of Game as supporting the sociocultural status-quo while self-admittedly profiting from feminist work makes it a parasitic thing, at best.
"Yes, yes, I've heard that before. The problem is, most of the really crazy MRAs *outrightly squander* the "power" they were born with. They're not a threat to anybody, even if you think they might have been."
MRA's ARE a threat: they're male and for the most part white, and as such they find it vastly easier to have their ideas and thoughts listened to and accepted by the wider culture than the ideas of non-whites and non-males (or even males with non-hegemonic masculinities). It would take less effort for the MRA's to push society back to the 1950's (or the 1850's, for that matter) than it took feminists to get us OUT of them. and their mere existence takes time, energy, and money out of the effort to change society to a more equitable one.
"Ironically enough, you do realize that many MRAs, *especially* the MGTOWers, hate patriarchy for similar reasons, right? As Paul Elam said, Let the “patriarchs” of the world have their foolish ways. It matters not to me."
every single MRA i've ever talked to doesn't even believe in the existence of the patriarchy. however, if this is an example of those who do, he's merely another parasite who won't do shit to help end it, and leaves all the work to the feminists, whom he also despises.
"Perhaps it is. In which case, it'll take a lot more to dismantle structural racism/sexism/whatever than picking on the PUAs, MRAs, and other assorted riffraff on the edges of the 'patriarchy's' power structure. You'd be a lot better off getting involved in politics, concentrating on economic issues facing women and other oppressed groups, etc. than spending so much time and effort on guys who don't and can't do anything besides post on the Internet. You're chipping away at the edges of the "patriarchy" rather than attacking its pillars, so to speak. "
I know I spend a lot of time just talking on the internet, but the fact is that you've just created a false dichotomy. I am fully capable of doing both: indulging my SIWOTI Syndrome on the fringes, and being an activist for more central issues. And some people, who aren't as ill or as dirtpoor as I (the privileges of health and class are powerful indeed) can do so even more than I can.
Vagrantsvoice, I think another important aspect of a discussion of privilege is that the people without the privilege are the most likely to be doubted, vilified, second guessed, or believed for no good reason to have ulterior motives, which means that it is *important* that people *with* privilege join the fight, ie it is important that *men* talk about these things to other men, as privilege means a man's word is more likely to be believed or taken seriously than a woman's.
ReplyDeleteThis is why it is so heinous that MRAs call men like David *manginas*. Men who talk to other men about these things are doing important work, as they know their voice carries more weight.
Paul Elam might hate patriarchy, but he believes that the current societal structure, the one that desperately needs to be toppled, is a matriarchy, that's how out of touch with reality he is.
ReplyDeleteMany of the MRAs and MGTOWers that hate patriarchy for the reasons put forth don't completely hate patriarchy...they hate the way that some aspects of patriarchy hurts men, but still want to hold fast to the aspects of patriarchy that privileges men.
I'm a little behind on the discussion here, but to go back to a point you made, vagrant, the herpes thing is a perfect example of how PUAs misuse science in order to fit the world to their preconceptions. More women than men have herpes because it is easier for them to get it.
ReplyDeleteGenital Herpes Transmission in Women
Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection.
Why Women are at Greater Risk with Genital Herpes
Women may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because:
* The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men.
* Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.
http://dermatology.about.com/cs/genitalherpes/a/genherp_women.htm
If you look at the Reuters story that was the source of Roissy's factoid, it's made clear that women get herpes more easily than men. That's mentioned in the CDC press release as well.
Really, Roissy shouldn't be claiming science is on his side if he doesn't even bother to look at a press release for the study, much less the study itself, or to do the 2 minutes of googling necessary to find out his explanation is simply wrong.
"Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman."
ReplyDeleteGenital Herpes Symptoms in Women
Genital Herpes - CDC Fact Sheet
So there goes the few Alpha males "giving the gift" to a large number of females who don't fuck anyone BUT Alpha males theory.
the herpes thing is a perfect example of how PUAs misuse science in order to fit the world to their preconceptions.
ReplyDeleteAnd they accuse women of being purely solipsistic **roll eyes**
Lots of great food for thought in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteSince I started reading this blog a few weeks ago, I've come to the realisation that MRAs hate feminism because they think it's a female version of their own ideology. Because these men promote male superiority (not equality), have contempt for the opposite sex, and want to restore all laws to privilege themselves, they believe that's what feminists are after for women. They literally don't understand how a women's movement can have anything other than control of men as an ultimate goal, because they've molded a men's group with the exact opposite goal. Every time I read bizarre claims about feminists considering women superior and wanting to dominate the world, I have to forcibly remind myself that they're approaching feminism as a parallel ideology to their own brand of sexist bigotry.
I don't need to tell anyone who knows anything about feminism that this is a massive misapprehension and has absolutely nothing to do with feminist ideology, but it's worth remembering in the context of this blog that this is how MRAs view feminism, and why they feel threatened by it.
Pam, I like the idea that the both of us independently reacted to that herpes = hypergamy argument by saying to ourselves, "that's bullshit," and heading to Google to find an instant rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteSomehow it makes me think of this:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lalu3ncXh61qzfv2r.gif
ooh, I *heart* Peggy ;-)
ReplyDeleteLOL!! And that's exactly what I did, exhale of smoke and all!!
ReplyDeleteTheir tired out laments about hypergamy (used in a context that is not actually hypergamy) are getting rather stale.
Thank you for your responses, Jadehawk and M.
ReplyDeleteIt would take less effort for the MRA's to push society back to the 1950's (or the 1850's, for that matter) than it took feminists to get us OUT of them.
Perhaps so, but that's not really saying much...the amount of effort MRAs would have to spend to roll back "progress" is absolutely herculean compared to the amount of effort your typical non-MRA man (or woman) would have to spend to do the same.
I am fully capable of doing both: indulging my SIWOTI Syndrome on the fringes, and being an activist for more central issues.
*Shrugs* fair enough. What you do with your time is neither my business or my concern, especially since I'm not invested in your struggles or causes. By all means, then, indulge your SIWOTI, I suppose I owe you an apology, again, if I have inflamed it.
Now, in reference to the herpes thing, thank you for the link, Mr. Futrelle. I do agree that Roissy's case is weakened by that biological fact, though keep in mind that the greater susceptibility of women to VDs like herpes isn't necessarily proof/evidence that they're *not* hypergamous either. Still, it does cast doubt on that piece of Roissy's. Thank you.
...though keep in mind that the greater susceptibility of women to VDs like herpes isn't necessarily proof/evidence that they're *not* hypergamous either
ReplyDeleteThat's a valid point, just as, for instance, lack of evidence to go to trial or to obtain a guilty verdict in a rape trial does *not* necessarily mean that the defendant is innocent/not guilty in actuality or that the complainant has made a false accusation. But MRAs would not likely accept that same logic as I have applied it here.
Why are feminists so bad at math? The women are not contracting herpes from uninfected individuals now are they?
ReplyDeleteLet's completely ignore the fact that those women who are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes got it from the same % of men with herpes.
The fact that they are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes only serves to highlight the case that they are all vying for the attentions of the same small percent of males and it bit them in the ass (so to speak).
@Pam,
ReplyDeleteGlenn Sacks reported on a study which found that a large percent of rape claims were false. They didn't use lack of evidence to prove these stats, they used the women's own admissions that they were false and further went to a panel of observers to determine if they thought a particular woman was coerced into that admission. If they determined she may have been coerced, the claim was put back on the viable pile.
http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1334
witman, what part of
ReplyDeleteif a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection.
do you not understand?
I posted that in a comment above; Pam posted the same information with some links; I also posted about this in my latest post.
Please read before commenting.
And on false rape accusations:
http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/mens-rights-myth-false-rape-accusations.html
Obviously I don't understand the part that conveniently ignores the fact that many women contracted Herpes from half as many men.
ReplyDeleteAnd I fully understand (NOT) that when a woman claims to be raped, she is 100% credible but when she recants her testimony she is a liar.
BTW, I read the entire OP and all the comments. I am merely pointing out the rather large elephant in the room that everyone else is ignoring.
ReplyDeleteThey aren't getting herpes from non-infected individuals so the hypergamy theory holds water.
Witman,
ReplyDeleteIt's clearly you that has difficulty with math. The point that women can contract herpes more easily than men doesn't prove hypergamy at all.
Example:
A woman sleeps with one infected male and contracts herpes herself.
She then has sex with 20 other men (all uninfected), but none of them contracts herpes off of her.
All it proves is that she did sleep with one man who had herpes, not how many other men she slept with.
And it proves that a small number of men infected twice as many women. The women are not catching Herpes from toilet seats or from un-infected individuals.
ReplyDeleteDo you get the other side of the math coin here?
Or a large number of women infected half as many men. Unless there are a disproportionate amount of rug munchers who are infected with Herpes, it's sound math.
ReplyDeleteSigh. I'll try to explain this one last time.
ReplyDeletePeople, male and female, sleep with multiple partners.
Let's say a woman sleeps with 5 guys, 2 of whom have herpes. Meanwhile, a man sleeps with 5 women, 2 of whom have herpes.
Even though they've each slept with the same number of partners, the woman is much more likely to end up with herpes from these encounters than the man is.
When this happens again and again in a large population, you end up with more women than men having herpes.
So the difference in rates of herpes does not in any way prove widespread hypergamy.
I assume you're just being willfully ignorant at this point.
ReplyDeleteMen who have herpes might indeed be having a lot of sex, which would explain why they're spreading it to so many women. But the herpes stats say nothing about the men who DON'T have herpes. For all we know from the numbers, they could be having as much, if not more sex than the herpes group, and just aren't contracting the disease from women who have it.
You're saying that the stats prove that a small number of men are having sex with a large number of women, whereas it could equally be the case that a large number of men are having sex with a large number of women. The point is WE CAN'T KNOW based on the information given what percentage of men are having sex with what percentage of women, given that it's entirely possible that men without herpes could have had as much sex as the herpes group without having contracting the disease.
The willful ignorance being that he's applying his math atop his begging the question. Sure, your math works, sort of, if you're already assuming that the smaller percentage of infected men is highly localized within a very small segment of the entire male population.
ReplyDeleteTwist it all you want, the women caught the disease from half their number. There is no way to twist this stat!
ReplyDelete"Twist it all you want, the women caught the disease from half their number. There is no way to twist this stat! "
ReplyDeletewhich implies precisely nothing about the number of uninfected men they've slept with, or whether the herpes-carriers are in fact "alphas", as everyone is trying to explain to you. you're innumerate.