>
 |
| 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.
>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.
>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.
>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?
>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.
>"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.
>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.
>"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.
>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.
>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.
>"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
>sorry for the deteriorating grammar. that's what i get for multitasking
>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).
>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).
>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.
>Stop selecting only for your ideal attractions, sorry
>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.
>(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."
>"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.
>"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.
>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.
>"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.
>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
>fuck it. i hate blogger. answer in spamfolder.
>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.
>"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.