>
 |
| 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.
>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.
>Pam:Good 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."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."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. 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.
>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.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.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."um… 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.Haha. 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."Did 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. If 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. I 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.It 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. '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…"or 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,While 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.I 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."People 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.Hm. 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. Honestly 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. There 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…)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." 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 menReally? 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).But 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.Guys 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?'"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. 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.
>If men and women adopt similar techniques to get noticed, then neither is really more manipulative than the other.And 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 bodsb) male shallowness/superficiality is not women's fault