>
 |
| 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.
>A couple of things. First, more apologies for anyone who's gotten caught in the spam filter. There are a lot of things I like about Blogger, but the spam filter, which can't be turned off, isn't one of them. Please be patient; it's not usually this bad. Second: Raul, I like the comparison of Game to a fad diet. A couple of years ago there were tons of geeks going on versions of the paleo diet, and going on and on about how they'd figured out the eternal secret of how to lose weight. I wonder how many have managed to keep the weight off. Probably not many.And vagrant, this comment of yours: "Gamers would say about 80% of all males, no matter what, would be unable to get laid without Game."True, Gamers do say things like this. But this is obviously completely false, and every single study of sexuality ever done refutes this absurd claim. By the Gamer logic, then, most men in relationships or married are completely celibate and/or still virgins, and most women are refusing to have sex EVER with their boyfriends/husbands and ONLY having sex with alpha gamers.
>If 80% of all males are unable to get laid without game I have no idea how we're here in 2010 as a species talking about game. If I recall correctly, human procreation has a little something to do with men getting laid.
>vagrant, you missed my point. it wasn't that Game wouldn't work on these women. It's that it isn't being used on them because men don't notice the existence of these women. They're vaguely human-shaped blobs, part of the furniture/landscape. Hell, they sometimes don't even aspire to "obstacles to get around in airports" (multiple women I know, after observing that it's almost always women who step aside when people are about to run into each other, stopped stepping aside, to see if the men would. often, they'd barrel right into them, looking confused, as if they've only now noticed there even was a person there).James Triptee wrote an awesome story on that subject, that conveys that sentiment""Gamers would say about 80% of all males, no matter what, would be unable to get laid without Game.""yes, they would say stuff like that. but unless they're members of the FLDS, they're talking out of their asses. Very few men die virgins. Not even all Catholic Priests do (and no, I'm actually not talking about rape, but about the many priests who fuck their house-cleaners or other female workers in the parish).
>If 80% of all males are unable to get laid without game I have no idea how we're here in 2010 as a species talking about game. If I recall correctly, human procreation has a little something to do with men getting laid.I guess we all must be the progeny of the 20% of males who DO get laid……y'know….. the ALPHA males….And the children of Beta males? Heh heh, well, they are the progeny of the Alpha males, too……y'know…..cuckoldry and all….
>"If 80% of all males are unable to get laid without game I have no idea how we're here in 2010 as a species talking about game. If I recall correctly, human procreation has a little something to do with men getting laid." you forget that we're not humans, but rather human-shaped wolves, where only one man per tribe gets to fuck. Ask a geneticist, he'll confirm it. 😉
>Because at its core this is the fundamental belief of all feminists regardless of where they find themselves falling on other more complex questions. All feminists believe that women are human beings of equal worth and complexity to men and must be treated that way in society. All feminists? Again, considering how many feminists there are, I would be surprised if you've spoken to "all" feminists and assured yourself that "all," or even a hard majority of them necessarily agreed with that. Some might say that no, their bedrock belief is that women are *more* human and thus deserve *more* rights than men. How, exactly, can you assure me that this belief is merely 'fringe?' why is there a need to vilify a human rights movement at all?Because every sort of scoundrel and villain can find cover for their misdeeds under the umbra of "human rights." Look at how many racist white organizations have campaigned not under the banner of overt hatred but under the auspices of "fairness" and "white rights." Yes, you'd say, "that just proves my point! They're oppressors! The black rights/women's rights/whatever movement I happen to like are the *true* good guys!"However, why should I or anyone else believe that? Many oppressed people want revenge, after all. When looking at the Civil Rights Movement (and keep in mind I myself am a "person of color"), or feminism, it's not unreasonable to ask whether or not the oppressed groups merely want liberation, or whether or not they want an opportunity to turn the tables on their oppressors. Do you want "equal rights?" Or do you merely want your turn to crack the whip? It's not an unreasonable question. It wasn't that Game wouldn't work on these women. It's that it isn't being used on them because men don't notice the existence of these women.The words of the Gamers themselves would tend to refute this. Whether or not 'conventionally unattractive' women are invisible to most men, PUAs have often related stories about bedding "warpigs," "fatties," and other 'conventionally unattractive' women who are, according to their laments, supposedly invisible. Hell, Tucker Max fucked girls ranging from the morbidly obese to a midget (I'm not kidding). Whatever the case may be for most guys, I'm not sure it's a point you can levy against the Gamers.
>""Gamers would say about 80% of all males, no matter what, would be unable to get laid without Game.""In reference to this statement, I must apologize–it was a poorly worded, off the cuff misstatement of the PUA position, and I apologize for that–both to you for confusing you and to the MRAs/PUAs for misconveying their position.I think a more accurate statement would be something like, "80% of men would be unable to get laid without *any game whatsoever, and in the absence of other factors like money.* First off, Game isn't an either-or proposition. It's not whether you have it or you don't–you can have expert game, good game, decent game, bad game, and then no game at all. Only a minority of men, I think a lot of PUAs would argue, have *no* game at all. The vast majority of men, however, have it to some degree. The 'naturals' have excellent game, and enjoy all the pussy they want. Other guys have it decently to poorly. Thus, they're not all celibate, they just don't get laid as much as the naturals/experts. That, and as the PUAs will also admit, Game can help a man to get laid, but it isn't the sole arbiter of his luck either. Women are (in their view) also attracted to money/resources/status, so even someone with poor game who's rich and famous can attract women. Indeed, someone doesn't even necessarily have to be rich and famous, but comparatively wealthy (a middle-class guy among poor rural girls, for instance) to have a shot with women, even with poor Game.This, I think, is a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the PUA position.
>"This, I think, is a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the PUA position. "which indeed confirms that it's a misogynist one, treating women like non-humans (since humans actually care about such things like personality and common interests, and occasionally even honestly fall in love with someone who "objectively" has nothing to offer)the alternative is that they're misanthropes in general, and think both men and women are shallow, personality-less, instinct-driven animals whose whole existence is focused on getting laid and getting married, respectively
>the alternative is that they're misanthropes in general, and think both men and women are shallow, personality-less, instinct-driven animals whose whole existence is focused on getting laid and getting married, respectively Women are vile creatures at heart, just as men are.
>Vagrant, I think the 80% thing is a revealing slip on your part. Because so many PUAs (not to mention incels) seem to actually think that's the way things work, that a small minority of men are having 80% (or some equally high percentage) of the sex in the world, and that all women (or at least all women visible to them) are madly fucking alphas/jocks/bad boys etc while making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright. A lot of guys in the "manosphere" really seem to think that alpha guys — and most women — live in some kind of crazy sexual utopia from which most men are excluded utterly. And then, after having convinced themselves that this ridiculous fantasy is true, they get really really angry at women for "mistreating" them in this way.
>so WHY am I supposed to take a misanthrope seriously?
>and more importantly, why should I take someone seriously who tells clearly non-monogamous women to pretend to be monogamous?these women, and their male equivalents, belong in the poly community, not to spouses who thought they got into a mutually monogamous relationship.
>Vagrantsvoice, you've brought up a lot of things and I am going to have to address them in more than one comment, in bits and pieces rather than in one big chunk. First:"Because every sort of scoundrel and villain can find cover for their misdeeds under the umbra of "human rights." Look at how many racist white organizations have campaigned not under the banner of overt hatred but under the auspices of "fairness" and "white rights." Yes, you'd say, "that just proves my point! They're oppressors! The black rights/women's rights/whatever movement I happen to like are the *true* good guys!"However, why should I or anyone else believe that?"What you are missing here is that racism, sexism, all these -isms various human rights movements fight are more than just relational ideas about who gets control of what and what one group things about another. Racism is race hatred PLUS historical, economic, political, social, structures. Sexism is gender hatred/gender superiority PLUS those same factors. A white supremacy/white rights movement is pretending to fight against racism but there is genuinely no racism, by definition, in the things they are fighting. They may be fighting some sort of prejudicial ideas on the parts of some minorities but racism requires power behind it to be racism more than just "shitty opinions of others based on what they are rather than who they are."This is why I said I would class feminism with something like the fathers rights movement rather than as the opposite end of the spectrum from MRAs, as fathers rights is about demonstrable, observable phenomena in the world and the ways a patriarchal system has stacked the deck against fathers in the court system. Of course I use patriarchal (or kyriarchical) there because that's a handy term for the *institutionalized* gender equality in the world that hurts men and women, but fathers rights activists may not use that word. The point is that they are fighting something real, whereas MRAs in my experience are the equivalent of your hypothetical "white rights" activists who want to claim that attitudes and prejudices against their group somehow equals the institutional oppression that must be present to call something "racist" or "sexist."Point blank: petty hatreds of the privileged class come with no institutional support and are not threatening, are not racist, are not sexist. Whatever small contingent of feminists there are out there that "hate men" do not have any real power or institutional structure behind their thinking and are truly a straw man — straw feminist! — argument of the worst sort.
>Part 2, part 1 may be spam filtered at the moment (and this one might not make it through for a while either!):"All feminists? Again, considering how many feminists there are, I would be surprised if you've spoken to "all" feminists and assured yourself that "all," or even a hard majority of them necessarily agreed with that. Some might say that no, their bedrock belief is that women are *more* human and thus deserve *more* rights than men. How, exactly, can you assure me that this belief is merely 'fringe?'"Okay pretending that this straw feminist contingent is worth all the scrutiny you want to give it, I would say that to be "superior," to be the "oppressor class," one must first not be disadvantaged. You cannot go from being a disadvantaged, repressed and diminished class of people to being the oppressor overnight, and even if there *are* some truly nutty feminists out there who believe women are superior — and I hate that I even have to explain this, but I have not encountered these mysterious creatures — they are lacking any power to make this happen. They are not a threat, as they are not yet even part of a *truly equal* class. To get there they would have to believe that women must be made equal. So yes, even these people, who are not anyone I have encountered in feminism and who largely exist in the minds and hypotheticals of people who want to vilify a genuine human fights movement, would have to believe in the fundamental equality of women before they could ever obtain their evil, fictional goals. But that was all a lot of words to say that, yes, the belief that women are equal to men and deserve to be treated as equals in this world is a bedrock belief shared across all feminisms. And if you are as concerned about fairness and having an honest argument as you appear to be I hope you will consider this suggestion: it is actually quite rude to hijack a discussion of someone's beliefs to insist that the discussion focus on some extreme and largely hypothetical group of people rather than on the vast majority of feminists and their real beliefs, one of which is that equality is important and has not yet been reached.
>this is in fact one of the ways in which the whole PUA thing is counterproductive and just serves to enshrine a status quo: assuming that cultural standards for relationships are correct, and trying to find a niche in them (even if it's a niche that exists only because such one-size-fits-all standards are inhumane, thus leading to misogyny or misanthropy, as well as lots of hurt feelings), instead of telling the social standards to go fuck themselves and negotiate relationships that benefit everyone involved.
>Because so many PUAs (not to mention incels) seem to actually think that's the way things work, that a small minority of men are having 80% (or some equally high percentage) of the sex in the world, and that all women (or at least all women visible to them) are madly fucking alphas/jocks/bad boys etc while making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright.Even in reference to the most negative assessment of the PUA worldview I mistakenly provided above, one could argue that it's closer to the mark than many (myself included) would care to admit. 80% was undoubtedly an overstatement, but for evidence that many if not most women are only having sex with a small number of men, PUAs would argue that 80% of women have managed to reproduce throughout history while only 40% of men have managed to pass on their genes, and that twice as many women as men have herpes, which means that either it's much easier for women to get the disease or that a small group of men is, as Roissy put it, "giving the gift" to a larger group of women. Personally, I disagree with this analysis (for instance, in reference to only 40% of men having passed on their genes, I would wager this is a function of more men dying before fathering children–killed by predators in hunting, dying in war, etc.–than female "hypergamy" or whatever), but I wouldn't say it's *entirely* without evidence.so WHY am I supposed to take a misanthrope seriously?A cynic might argue that misanthropes are the only people who deserve to be taken seriously…that's a bit too bleak for even my tastes, though. More relevantly, as I said above, even a broken clock is right twice a day. A misanthropist like Roissy may be wrong about many things, but he might be right when it comes to gender relations. At the very least, from what I've seen he's right when it comes to getting laid…most of my acquaintances who've internalized his methods to some degree have met with greater success with women, in some cases markedly so.
>"Do you want "equal rights?" Or do you merely want your turn to crack the whip? It's not an unreasonable question."I would sugges it *is* an unreasonable question, because how could minorities or women somehow situate themselves in a place where they can crack the whip without *first* obtaining true socioeconomic and political equilibrium? This is a question to be asked a long time from now, when (I hope) there are fewer disparities. People of color, women, LGBTQ folks, any of these people wanting revenge are simply engaging in fantasies that cannot be made reality in the world we currently live in, and those fantasies should not be used to stop the course of equality, or to question its purpose. These kinds of questions are used to stop the march of human rights, and if we took them as seriously as you want us to there would be no civil-rights or feminist or LGBTQ successes, because that question, that tactic, is employed every single time anyone in a disadvantaged group tries to change the status quo. "PUAs have often related stories about bedding "warpigs," "fatties," and other 'conventionally unattractive' women who are, according to their laments, supposedly invisible. Hell, Tucker Max fucked girls ranging from the morbidly obese to a midget (I'm not kidding). Whatever the case may be for most guys, I'm not sure it's a point you can levy against the Gamers."You do know how dehumanizing and misogynistic/ablist these terms and ideas are, yes? Genuine question. This paragraph pretty much proves the inherent misogny you're arguing is not part of Game.
>You do know how dehumanizing and misogynistic/ablist these terms and ideas are, yes? Genuine question. This paragraph pretty much proves the inherent misogny you're arguing is not part of Game. No, no, these guys use these terms because they're assholes, not because they're gamers. Other PUA artists are much more sensitive, and I mean that literally. For instance, there's a story about how Mystery was couching a guy, and his student referred to a woman's "bitch shields." Mystery gently corrected him and told them they were "protection shields," and explained why, from the woman's perspective, she wasn't being unreasonable. That…doesn't sound that misogynistic.petty hatreds of the privileged class come with no institutional support and are not threatening, are not racist, are not sexist.The powerful do not always maintain their power, and the powerless may become much stronger with time. You are correct in your assessment of racism as being more than merely 'nasty thoughts' and reliant on the acquisition of actual power (political, military, economic, etc.). However, this assumes that these oppressed groups will *never* gain the sort of institutional support their oppressors had. How do you know this?The feminists–or the Civil Rights people, or whoever–may not have sufficient power to oppress their oppressors *right now.* Will that be the case in the future? Is it not even a possibility to be considered?You cannot go from being a disadvantaged, repressed and diminished class of people to being the oppressor overnight, and even if there *are* some truly nutty feminists out there who believe women are superior — and I hate that I even have to explain this, but I have not encountered these mysterious creatures — they are lacking any power to make this happen. They are not a threat, as they are not yet even part of a *truly equal* class. This applies just as easily to MRAs and PUAs as it does to you folks. Roissy doesn't have any power over anybody. He's just some guy with a blog who manages to get laid a lot. The MGTOWers David has exposed on this blog talking about how women are worthless and evil don't have any power either, and they almost never will, due to the fact that they explicitly abjure getting involved in politics or doing much of anything beyond "surviving." If the nutcases of feminism can be shunted under the carpet because they're essentially powerless, why can't the same be done for the nutcases among the MGTOWs or PUAs or whoever?
>"The powerful do not always maintain their power, and the powerless may become much stronger with time. You are correct in your assessment of racism as being more than merely 'nasty thoughts' and reliant on the acquisition of actual power (political, military, economic, etc.). However, this assumes that these oppressed groups will *never* gain the sort of institutional support their oppressors had. How do you know this?"I have to ask you again why these kinds of hypotheticals should stop actual *equality* from happening. Why use these kinds of things to halt equal rights? The possibility that one group will overtake another is not an intellectually sound argument for keeping things unequal in favor or the current privileged groups. It just makes no sense. You would prefer the historically dominant classes *maintain* their control forever out of concern that equality might make it *possible* for the historically disadvantaged to some day gain unfair control? This is deeply backward.
>two things about the "twice as many women" thing:one, it's not properly sourced; the trail ends at an article that argues against straw-feminism while also using some already refuted and outdated datatwo, "twice as many women" already implies that it's not just "alphas" who spawn.three, it doesn't seem to take rape into account. Before the invention of consent, and before the invention of reliable birth-control, having a single man rape women all over the place will result in one male gene, but plenty of female genes; otoh, a single woman gang-raped, or raped multiple times over the course of a year, still only results on one female and one male gene. for parity, a woman would have to be raped AND impregnated by as many men as a single man managed to impregnate various women. biology makes that a wee bit hard to pull off.and three, I'll point you back to the FLDS example: patriarchy really does hurt men, too. and the more patriarchal the society, the more it does hurt men. it's quite ironic that it was feminism that liberated women to fuck whomever they wanted, instead of "selling" their virginity to a provider (for themselves as well as their families), thus making it more likely for "betas" to get laid.It's in fact my observation, from having fucked in several countries, and have known sexually active people from even more countries, that the more feminist a country, the more people get laid more often, with more partners, less judgementally. I've always joked around that if I ever find myself single again, I'll test that hypothesis by fucking my way thru Sweden.
>yes, my math sucks. or my editing skills. take your pick 😉
>"Do you want "equal rights?" Or do you merely want your turn to crack the whip? It's not an unreasonable question."that reminds me of the fear christianists have of teh ebil mooslins taking over (both in the us and in europe): when you consider the tyranny of the majority, and cultural hegemony, as the only right way to run a society, you of course are going to be scared stupid of someone else maybe possibly threatening YOUR position at the top. when oppression is accepted as good and right, one becomes paranoidally worried about becoming the oppressed.secularists don't have that fear, since they are capable of understanding that a secular society is one that protects the rights of a minority as well as the rights of the majority, while not adopting the religious standards of either. As such, it's irrelevant whether the majority is christian or muslim or atheist or wiccan, because those who aren't in the majority are just as free to follow their religions.the same goes for "white rights" "men's rights" etc.: groups that are used to hegemonic power, and seeing it as a natural way of running the world, are scared shitless of human rights and equality movements because they view them, through their own paradigms, as attempts to simply reverse roles, instead of destroy the paradigm and the roles altogether.
>"This applies just as easily to MRAs and PUAs as it does to you folks. Roissy doesn't have any power over anybody. He's just some guy with a blog who manages to get laid a lot. The MGTOWers David has exposed on this blog talking about how women are worthless and evil don't have any power either, and they almost never will, due to the fact that they explicitly abjure getting involved in politics or doing much of anything beyond "surviving." If the nutcases of feminism can be shunted under the carpet because they're essentially powerless, why can't the same be done for the nutcases among the MGTOWs or PUAs or whoever?"The reality of privilege is that if you are born a male power is bestowed upon you no matter what you chose to do with it. I am not talking pure political power here, but a complex intersection of powers that mean you are more serious, more worthy, more *human* in the eyes of society. In the same way that my being born white gave me a socioeconomic and even political power above what people of color are born with — and with it came certain opportunities, certain passes to move about the world a certain way that people of color cannot, even if it comes down to the everyday phenomena of, say, not being followed around a store because a shopkeeper things I am predisposed to shoplifting — being born male gives men privileges and power they often just take for granted as "the way of the world."And the things MRAs see as "unfair female privilege" are often the surface effects of this structural inequality feminists and others call "patriarchy" or "kyriarchy," not some sort of genuine structure of female superiority. For example, something like alimony is deeply rooted in the historical structures that have seen women be unpaid home laborers for thousands of years, "working" on a kind of labor that gives them no economic or personal freedom. If patriarchy were truly dismantled, alimony and many of the other things MRAs are so mad about would not be the issue it is today, and yet they can only see the tiny tip of the iceberg of patriarchy that is stubbing their toes. Meanwhile, the rest of the iceberg is crushing women's very personhood, our right to be equal and autonomous people who are not called "warpigs" for simply being ourselves and not caring to spend giant amounts of money and time starving ourselves, primping ourselves, always striving to be *good* by looking the way someone else says we ought to. Men *do* have power, even the most powerless men, just as I, a woman, have power people of color do not, all because I am white.
>You would prefer the historically dominant classes *maintain* their control forever out of concern that equality might make it *possible* for the historically disadvantaged to some day gain unfair control? This is deeply backward. *I* didn't say I "preferred" that, I'm merely pointing out that it seems to be a legitimate question. Does giving 'equality' to an oppressed group open up the *possibility* of them gaining power over you someday? If so, it seems like something to legitimately consider if one happens to be a member of the "privileged" group. Jadehawk, I agree with your critiques of the article (I haven't managed to find the actual study which proved the 40-80% thing, and I've been looking for a while), like I said I found it dubious for the reasons I mentioned earlier (the difference, if it exists, could also be laid at the feet of male fatality rather than hypergamy).that the more feminist a country, the more people get laid more often, with more partners, less judgementally.PUAs will admit this–I again quote Ferdinand Bardamu, who said "If my penis ever does learn how to use a keyboard and mouse, In Mala Fide will turn into the most rabidly pro-feminist blog that ISN’T written by a woman." Feminism makes Game much more effective, which means even guys with low Game find themselves with a bit more success than they would have had otherwise. This isn't really much of a critique of Game, though.
>The reality of privilege is that if you are born a male power is bestowed upon you no matter what you chose to do with it.Yes, yes, I've heard that before. The problem is, most of the really crazy MRAs *outrightly squander* the "power" they were born with. They're not a threat to anybody, even if you think they might have been.If patriarchy were truly dismantled, alimony and many of the other things MRAs are so mad about would not be the issue it is today, and yet they can only see the tiny tip of the iceberg of patriarchy that is stubbing their toes.Ironically enough, you do realize that many MRAs, *especially* the MGTOWers, hate patriarchy for similar reasons, right? As Paul Elam said, Let the “patriarchs” of the world have their foolish ways. It matters not to me. I will be busy surviving as they march themselves and their unfortunate progeny into the grinding halls of family justice. We’ll call it intellectual culling, and the world will be better for it.