Over on his little chateau, otherwise known as a blog, the pick-up Heartiste Formerly Known as Roissy suggests a rather unusual role model for young and not-so-young men hoping to impress women with their alphaness: Chris Brown. Not for being a charismatic singer, but for that time he nearly beat Rihanna to death.
Oh, you don’t have to literally beat up women to be an alpha. Just work on making them uncomfortable and insecure.
Maxim #19: Making a woman feel a little emotional pain will reward you a thousandfold in returned physical pleasure.
You don’t have to be fists-of-fury Chris Brown to pick up a Rihanna and make her fall in deep, profound love with you, but don’t let the lesson of their relationship be lost on you. If you are a beta male — and odds are you are — you can superglue your relationship bond by instilling in your woman a calculated level of discomfort and insecurity. You won’t feel bad about this, because you will know that the discomfort you create is subconsciously DESIRED by your girl. Despite her outward appearance of frustration and timorous appeasement, you will know that inside, she is lit up like a vagina tree, with a squirting orgasm shooting out of the star on top.
In addition to everything else that is horribly wrong with this quote, let me just say that “lit up like a vagina tree” is not a phrase that I hope works its way into the vernacular.
So far, so good.
Eline, uh, I’d just as soon rather not jump to generalize about the people who may or may not date the Roissy’s of the world. While it may be true that some of the women they encounter are “damaged” I’d make a wager that a lot of what these men write about “women” is more shit they make up and glean from shows like Two and a Half Men, rather than any real interaction. Basically, I think it’s maybe 1 part mostly truth, 1 part straight up lies and 3 parts exaggeration (which I feel is generous).
Yeah, some women with low self-esteem might go for these guys, but younger, more naive people might, or just people who’ve bought into the patriarchal bullshit in our culture.
Quite frankly, I’d just as soon rather not anyone with emotional issues wind up with the likes of a man who thinks making a woman feel like shit is the way to make her fall in love with them because those guys are certain to make any emotional insecurities WORSE. A big part of the reason I didn’t date for a long time was because I was afraid most men actually were more Roissy-ish. That, and the stigma that “damaged” people shouldn’t date.
IMHO, what would be really good for the “rest of the people” is for the Roissy’s of the world to stop thinking of sex as something they need to “take” from women and for “damaged” people to get whatever help and support they need.
@BlackBloc I’ve got some Nepalese anarcha-riot grrrl stuff on my laptop but it’s not on Youtube 🙁
Wow. This is some offensive bullshit right here.
To add, I don’t think someone with BPD for example isn’t capable of forming a healthy relationship with the right help. Just that there is a number of people who don’t get the support for reason or another and cycle between unhealthy relationships, and they would appear to be these women the PUAs think all women are. BPD was just one possible cause for this behaviour that came to mind, there’s other reasons too.
Fucking hell eline, stop talking. You do realise that you’re literally saying some people just ‘deserve’ to be abused by their partners, right?
FUCK. THAT. SHIT.
No eline its not okay to mess with someones life because you think their “damaged”. Nor is it all right to take your personal issues and use them as an excuse to treat someone else like shit.
Also, most shitty behaviour is caused by someone deciding to be shitty as opposed to having a mental illness or personality disorder. There just arent that many “damaged” people in the world eline
Last time I checked, we had a government and there were still rapes, robberies and murders. So yes, I trust my fellow comrades as much as I trust them under government, because people usually don’t rape, rob or kill people and don’t have the desire to do so either.
I do trust that neighborhood direct democratic councils and worker unions would be able to preserve order through voluntary neighborhood watches or militias without the need of a permanent unelected and unrepresentative law enforcer class (who are often bigots and whose major sociopolitical role is to beat up blacks and the poor).
Team Victim Blaming Internet Diagnosis!
It doesn’t matter why PUAs think that abusing women is okay, and it’s sure pretty freaking unlikely that all of the women they’ve ever met would be classified as bipolar under the DSM. What matters is that they do hate women and want to manipulate and abuse them. And that’s wrong. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to see women as individual people and they didn’t take a single one.
I think it means that, since Hostess Corp. is filing for bankrupcy, it means that people don’t want cupcakes and therefore opening boutique cupcake stores is stupid. And since in their view only women open these kinds of stores, that shows that women are stupid.
That would be the least stupid explanation, but the main vibe I’m getting is still “Nooo not my overprocessed junk food! What will I eat after the nuclear war?”
I wish people would stop talking about cupcakes, it’s making me want some. 😛
Yeah, sorry, that came out all assbackwards and upside down. I was on the move, shopping, arguing with some fuckwad and typing a few words here and there on my smartphone and adding bits inbetween, and hit send before I had read if it actually said what I intended. And it doesn’t. It kinda comes off as the exact opposite of what I wanted to say in regards of BPD. Let’s try again, now that I’m seated behind a computer with a nice cup of tea to help me collect my brain. Please consider the above post as a random collection of unfinished thoughts that unintentionally combine everything together into one hot mess.
Yo, Mr No-Name, google ‘Zapatista.’
Byeeee.
@Katz:
Twinkies will be the only food to survive the nuclear winter. That’s okay, the only creatures left to eat them will be the roaches.
OK, after “lit up like a vagina tree” and “jester’s fool’s fool,” I have to ask…
does anyone have a theory on why MRAism has such a strong correlation with unbelievably terrible writing? This is not just unskilled or inept writing, it goes way beyond that. And there’s far more of it among MRAs than there statistically “should” be, even given that David is “cherry picking” the worst bits of bad prose for his posts.
I’m going to guess that a big part of it is what happens when a writer combines weak reasoning skills with an overinflated sense of their own intelligence and importance. But even that seems inadequate to explain it. Is having a poorly developed and crude sense of aesthetics a common thing for hate movements? I vaguely recall reading that it might be.
I do think that the “pompous mansplaining jackass” theory accounts for a lot of the terrible writing. I suspect that the floridity of a lot of the writing comes from trying to imitate older (say 18th and 19th century) writing styles; MRAs are often traditionalists/conservatives/reactionaries, and those types often write (badly) like that.
I suspect that the floridity of a lot of the writing comes from trying to imitate older (say 18th and 19th century) writing styles
Thanks for that insight– that does explain a lot of it! Though fuck knows what Heartiste is trying to imitate. Vagina tree. He has to be fucking with people.
@AlexB
I have a hypothesis that it is in part because they don’t have a good motivation behind their writing.
They’re not motivated by fear for their safety, they’re not motivated by sadness that bad things are happening to people, they’re not motivated by loving other people and trying to protect them.
All they’re motivated by is anger and while anger is an important part of an activist movement it can’t be all it’s about.
The fancy writing is just a means to cover up for the complete lack of substance and logical thinking. If they go around and around in circles, maybe you won’t notice that they aren’t making any sense. It is also an effort to try to sound authorative, to convince the reader they’re smarter and should be trusted. “Mansplaining” is a good way to describe it.
@alexb
You have to try and imagine what other people think/feel to write effectively. You must move outside your own personal frame of reference to make a piece of writing palatable to people who are not like you. This is especially true when writing something political or something meant to persuade other people. There are very few MRA’s who actually understand much about feminism and simply disagree with its aims, most are totally unwilling (incapable?) of seeing the world from a perspective other than their own. It shows in their writing.
Also, only people who are interested in improving their writing seek out criticism in order to improve. If you think you are great already there is little reason to change, and the least competent people are the most likely to think they are doing great (dunning-kreuger effect). The legion of dumbasses willing to call any shitty tirade “brilliant” as long as it craps on women makes it easy for a dudebro to go on thinking he is an awesome writer.
Now fair’s fair: they were probably all kept out of writing classes by misandrist English teachers.
They’re not motivated by fear for their safety, they’re not motivated by sadness that bad things are happening to people, they’re not motivated by loving other people and trying to protect them,
But of course, they want to sound like they are. You make a good point. Mimicking the discussions that happen in social justice movements while having no actual concern or feeling for social justice is definitely not a recipe for good writing.
They’re kind of like a cargo cult, aren’t they?
If they dress up their wanking with social justice-esque terms like “creepshaming” they’re real social justice activists!
If they use big words like nineteenth century intellectuals did, they too will be important Men of Ideas.
If they use sciency sounding sentences about testosterone and “hypergamy” they’re serious scientific thinkers and anyone who disagrees with them hates science.
@AlexB: I was pretty much accusing one of our resident trolls here, a couple days ago, of practicing cargo cult logic.
I stopped after it occurred to me that it might sound like I thought the problem with the original cargo-cult people was that they were brown, not that they were ignorant and confronted with people acting in ways very difficult to comprehend without a clue. Not to mention already primed with the idea that white people were associated with Stuff arriving from over the horizon.
So, Steele and MSN are now admitted fascists, not surprising. Kudos though on being honest about the fact that ‘objecitivism’ is just a code word for fascism.
Can we kick them out of the social justice dance?
Experts in domestic violence routinely point out that wife-beaters and other abusers are, contrary to stereotype, aware of what they’re doing. Their internal rationale is, “If I tear her down, she’ll be too insecure to leave me and/or too insecure to disobey or flout my wishes.”
The appeal of PUA stuff is exactly the same: They promise that by tearing at a woman emotionally, you can replace her wishes with yours.
I’m not surprised, therefore, that their “relationship” advice follows abuser logic. To paraphrase Skylar on “Breaking Bad”, they don’t want lovers. They want hostages.
Also, love how he convinces abusers that any pangs of guilt they feel over emotionally abusing—or hitting, which his disavowals of are far outweighed by his celebrations of—can be assuaged by blaming the victim. “If she just obeyed me without complaint, I wouldn’t have to abuse her!” is his logic, and anyone who is in an abusive relationship can tell you that this line will be stated directly to the victim after every beating or other obvious line-crossing the abuser must rationalize.