Categories
antifeminism creepy evil women incel misogyny sex sluts Uncategorized

>Campus creep out

>

Damn you, accursed temptress!

In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:

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

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

154 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sproggenfree
9 years ago

>Yeah, he's protesting WAY too much. I recently discovered your blog, and I really like it. You're performing a good and necessary service. Keep it up.

ThirteenthWind
9 years ago

>Aight. First 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.))

Eoghan
9 years ago

>See "the construction of the creep" on feministcritics.org (feminists that don't hate men) So 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.

Andrea
9 years ago

>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.A 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.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>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.Much 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.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>I admit it:as 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 :-/

Eoghan
9 years ago

>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.Pam, " 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.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire themIs 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.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"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."which 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?

M
M
9 years ago

>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. Also, "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.

Ejdzej
9 years ago

>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.

Andrea
9 years ago

>No 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.As 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.

Eoghan
9 years ago

>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.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. 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?

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"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."pushing 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-men2)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.

Raul Groom
9 years ago

>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.I'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.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>Did my previous comment get eaten up? If not, I apologize for reposting it.which 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.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>vagrant, your comment was caught by the spam filter. (and now it's uncaught)As 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.

M
M
9 years ago

>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. And 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.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>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.As I mentioned before, I'll be doing a post on this at some point.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>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.Somehow 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

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>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.I 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.

M
M
9 years ago

>Yes to everything Jadehawk said.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>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.As 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)

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>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."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".

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>and david, thank you for the welcome. Found your blog via pandagon 🙂

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>you can't "gain" a sense of humor and wit by using someone else's idea of humor and wit. I'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.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>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"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.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>fuck, google ate my long response, and I can't be bothered to retype, so here's the bullet-point version–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?

Blackwell
9 years ago

>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.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"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"like 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.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>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?besides, 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.

M
M
9 years ago

>"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."Yes.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Jade — your long post got caught by the spam filter (alas, I can't turn the thing off). It's up now. vagrant: "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.

Raul Groom
9 years ago

>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.In 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.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"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.In 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

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>sorry for the deteriorating grammar. that's what i get for multitasking

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>Is there ANY evidence that this is true in real life?Perhaps 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).

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>the woman PUA's seem to aim for are not that "average woman", but rather they aim for the "most popular girl";I'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).

M
M
9 years ago

>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.I 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.

M
M
9 years ago

>Stop selecting only for your ideal attractions, sorry

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>tends to focus on the most superficial women out there, the most looks-obsessed both with regard to themselves and to men,Fair 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 witI 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.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>(sorry for the double comment, long long long…)Just 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."

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"I might be wrong about this, but I'm genuinely curious as to what makes you think PUAs only aim for the 'popular' girls"-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.

M
M
9 years ago

>"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."See, 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.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>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.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.-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-feminismThey 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.

M
M
9 years ago

>"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."Vagrantsvoice, 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.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>meh. blogger just did something weird to the comment I was only half-done writing. how annoying. let's try again."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

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>fuck it. i hate blogger. answer in spamfolder.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>Hm. 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…Still, I suppose such unhappy ruminations would make me a gratuitous guest indeed. I apologize, and thank you again for your response.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"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." again, 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.

1 2 3 4