Leave it to the guys at Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog to find a bright side, of sorts, to a study reporting that one in five Americans suffered from some sort of mental illness in 2010, with more women (23%) amongst those affected than men (16.8%).
Since “at least a quarter of the women you run into at any given time are not going to be alright upstairs,” RoK contributor Athlone McGinn argues, and the percentage is likely to be much higher amongst younger women, you might as well use this fact to your advantage.
But first you need to accept the disadvantages. For one thing, you need to realize your powerful man-logic won’t work on these gals:
If you’re 18-25, you will in many cases be dealing with someone who is fundamentally incapable of being reliably rational.
Never mind that most mental illnesses don’t affect the ability to think rationally about most things. Someone with an intense phobia of Donald Trump’s hair, for example, is able to think rationally about everything except Donald Trump’s hair.
Maybe that’s a bad example. I’m not sure it’s entirely irrational to be afraid of Donald Trump’s hair.
And, like their sane counterparts, the crazy ladies may sometimes turn you down. But at least this time you don’t have to feel so bad about yourself.
You may think you’re a loser because you get shot down by these girls more than you’d like, but this isn’t always the case: you’re often dealing with not-entirely-alright girls with illogical criteria.
Oh, but McGinn assures us that “[t]his isn’t an excuse, mind you.” You still need to make sure your “game” is tight. Just don’t be too hard on yourself, because women (like the prices at Crazy Eddie’s electronics emporiums) are literally insane.
So what’s the great advantage of dating a woman who’s mentally ill? McGinn is a bit vague, probably deliberately, but essentially he suggests that men can keep “dysfunctional” women in line by treating them like shit:
Dysfunctional treatment is often welcomed by dysfunctional people, and many of those with mental issues fit that bill. Since we’ve already established that a very large number of young women fit into that category, you should not be surprised to see so many of them respond positively to dysfunctional behavior.
It is not uncommon for young men to adopt some of these dysfunctional behaviors, find increased sexual/romantic success with their female peers as a result, and then feel guilty about it all. Such guilt is understandable (they don’t like the fact that morally degraded versions of themselves are more appealing to girls in general than the men they actually prefer to be), but ultimately unnecessary—there is nothing a man can do about the female proclivity to welcome such behavior except adapt to it. It is the result of factors much bigger than him.
Poor pickup artists! They don’t want to be abusive, manipulative, exploitative assholes and terrible people generally. They’re driven to this awful behavior by forces beyond their control — like the fact that women are statistically somewhat more likely to suffer from mental illness than men.
Erwan, I am so sorry about what happened to you. Neuroatypical and mentallg ill people can be abusers. No one is trying to say that we can’t, or that it is okay when we do it. It is absolutely not okay. Dismantling ableism is not about excusing what happened to you. It is about protecting people with disabilities (including mental disabilities) from the discrimination we face.
We’re also not saying that if you meet a mentally ill person, you are obligated to date them, or stay with them if things get rough. My ex would have been totally within his rights to end things with me because my emotional needs were so high, and I wasn’t able to support him the way a partner should. But he didn’t. Instead, he exploited my vulnerability to make me dependent on him. That’s the kind of thing that we are objecting to.
It’s strange how some posts that aren’t even as shocking as many others get to me. This is totally one of those posts.
@Viscaria: Very well said. I think the problem we have is that with all the material on the Internet telling people to run in the opposite direction when they see people with mental disabilities, it’s hard not to feel like we’re being typecast. I have been diagnosed with NPD, and many people with NPD are abusers and manipulative. But to write me off, and to write off everyone with NPD, and to tell people not to bother with us, that hurts. That’s bigotry.
Here’s a thought experiment. Replace the mental disability in the pick up artist’s post with physical disability. Do you see how ableist it is now?
Oh look, another douchebag who is completely ignoring the fact that with these figures (17% vs 23%) the difference between the sexes is negligible.
Particularly when we know that men, for various reasons, tend to not seek medical help as consistently as women do.
Also, seen on Tumblr. Is that a brony I see wondering why women don’t like to be raped, because “they like to be dominated?”
http://acerebral.tumblr.com/post/37541259437
@Chie Satonaka
That was actually featured on Manboobz once:
http://manboobz.com/2012/05/16/a-brony-has-some-truly-horrifying-questions-about-rape/
@Myoo, whoops, I missed that one! So gross!
“*pulls out DSM*…*rearranges half of bedroom, pulls out DSM* >.<"
Not to worry, AA. The DSM-IV is deficient in many ways, even offensive, but it makes an admirable shim for uneven furniture. We understand.
@Valerian
Argenti doesn’t really like being called AA, just so you know.
I’m pretty sure WATB stands for “Whiny-Ass Titty Baby”, as in comparing the whiner to a baby crying for a meal. I remember seeing Atrios use that a few years back to describe right-wing pundits.
Falconer might object, but I think we can agree behaviour acceptable for an infant isn’t acceptable for a pundit.
Reading the OP makes me boiling angry. It’s not as if some shitty men (and women) need more excuses to take advantage of people for their own use. I’ve had depression since… Hell, a decade now. I’ve had enough people use my low self esteem and want for friendship/companionship to get things from me. This bahvior does not need further enabling! Seriously, I’m so done with skeevy people figuring out what I really need to be happy and then dangling that carrot just out of my reach. I’ve had more shitty people take advantage of me due to my depression then people who give a shit enough to help so fuck you McDumbass and go to hell. and to tell guys to take advantage of a woman’s vulnerability due to mental illness is one of the shittiest of all shitty things to do.
McGinnis has forgotten the First Rule of Holes. Dude, take your gaslighting shit elsewhere.
Well said, and I’ll add for Erwan’s benefit that mentally ill people are statistically far more likely to be the victims of abuse and violence rather than the perpetrators. That doesn’t mean that mentally ill people can’t be abusive, but the way our culture views the mentally ill (violent, unpredictable, manipulative) winds up obscuring the violence that so many people with mental illnesses face. It goes beyond just people with actual mental illness, too, to the point where any abuser or violent criminal whose actions don’t seem reasonable are called mentally ill, when in fact many abusers don’t have a mental illness.
I’m very sorry about what happened to you as well, but it shouldn’t be used as a justification to stereotype all people with mental illnesses.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s right. I saw Pam Spaulding use it more often than Atrios (but then I spent more time at Pandagon than at Eschaton).
I dunno, they’re more similar than you’d think, especially if no one is paying attention to them just at the moment.
“I instead tell them to adapt. That can mean disengaging and just leaving many (or most) girls in a given location alone or intentionally making moves to up the notch count by adopting dysfunctional behavior (read: becoming what could be considered by many to be “a douchebag”). That’s up to them.”
Why not leave it up to PUAs to decide whether or not they will exploit a situation in which someone else is at a disadvantage? That way you cannot possibly be held accountable for failing to say, “this is wrong.” You can glibly say, “well there’s lots of ways to interpret that and I’m not morally responsible for not condemning this behavior”. That’s just a slippery excuse and it doesn’t hold water in the real world when you are offering questionable advice to young men and women who are looking to you for how to behave. Not only that you are normalizing an antisocial behavior by rationalizing that “unnecessary” guilt away.
I am going to contend that because you used “adapt” in the context of dysfunctional behaviors on the part of men it is not reasonable for your readers to read the broader meaning of that word into your advice.
You, at best, left it vague and passed the responsibility onto a PUA who may or may not exploit another person’s illness in order to gain sexual favors.
And using the disadvantages of others to get what you want is not just “ungentlemanly” it’s monstrous. Let’s just get that straight.
@daintydougal
Congratulations to you and your other half on the new job!
@titianblue:
“you, Macginnis, are full of shite. Instead of coming around here trying to be all mealy-mouthed and pretending to be a decent human being, own that shite. ‘Cos we can see right through your specious arguments and semantic nit-picking. You are a shite-bag.”
Well, that sounds like a fair, reasoned rebuttal.
@Fibinachi:
“Pretending that what you were actually saying is “Hey, sometimes you get rejected!” is all well and good.
But what you said was “Hey, sometimes you get rejected because bitches be crazy so don’t care about those irrational folk!“.”
Where did I pretend not to say that? This is what I’m not understanding.
I said in my original post that self-improvement was important but that you will encounter individuals for whom even all the right moves will be wrong and you need to deal with that.
It was clearly implied in that post that some of those failures will be due to mental issues among those you are approaching. At what point in time did I imply otherwise here?
What I’ve been saying this entire time is “hey, sometimes you get rejected and yes, sometimes that is because you’ll run into people who aren’t thinking straight”. Where did that change? Where is the “redirection”?
“It’s still incongruent and inconsistent, because your goals move based on what people here say.”
My goals are the same as they were when I wrote the article. Your interpretations are something else.
@Ally. S:
“I see that you aren’t actually arguing against exploiting mentally-ill women, you just see it as an alternative means of adaption.
Hmmm…nope, you’re still awful.”
I’m far too large of a “sexist” to be considered anything but “awful” in the liberal western context.
@auggziliary:
“You’re dealing with “irrational” men too, so would you think it’s ok to manipulate them as well?”
Men (especially young men) are easily manipulated, even the supposedly “rational” ones. Many are capable of losing their minds around even moderately attractive women, and the women in question are quite aware that they possess this kind of control. They use such men for a variety of things, turning them into providers of validation, butlers, movers, “emotional tampons”, and a host of other things. Young men are thirsty and often extremely needy/insecure, so they are very easy to twist around.
I don’t blame young women who choose to use their power over men. I merely expect it, and teach the men who will listen how to avoid falling victim to it.
“don’t pull that “but I meant leave them alone!” BS”
Why? That option was also clearly implied.
These false dichotomies you are all drawing do get a bit tired. Yes, “adaptation” can mean “adopt dysfunctional behaviors to improve success”. It can also clearly mean “disengage”. Men can choose which one they wish to pursue-that was left quite open ended in the article.
Why is this so hard to see?
“You’re pretending we don’t know that being a douche is a form of living in society. Our point is, you’re STILL a douche, whether its “adaption” or not.”
Good, I wouldn’t argue against that point. I’d very much prefer to be known as “the douche” instead of the “nice guy”.
@sarahlizhousespouse:
“Why not leave it up to PUAs to decide whether or not they will exploit a situation in which someone else is at a disadvantage? That way you cannot possibly be held accountable for failing to say, “this is wrong.” You can glibly say, “well there’s lots of ways to interpret that and I’m not morally responsible for not condemning this behavior”.”
Most of the guys reading this are not going to be PUAs, MRAs or MGTOWs. They’re just going to be guys. So yes, I am saying that I will leave it up to YOUNG MEN to decide what they want to do.
Do they wish to adopt dysfunctional behaviors (read: quit dating, quit being decent, quit listening, quit acknowledging her as a person outside of party environments, and become the “hookup buddies” so many young women demand today) and increase their sexual success rate? Fine.
Do they wish to merely disengage until such time as they can find themselves in an environment where they do not need such dysfunctional behavior to get what they want romantically? Also fine.
“Not only that you are normalizing an antisocial behavior by rationalizing that “unnecessary” guilt away.”
The culture of which I speak is already “normalized”. Go to any major college campus and see that for yourself. This is the way of the modern young American world. I am merely giving young men a means with which to deal with it.
This is a world in which the “antisocial” jerk who doesn’t call unless he’s trying to get laid on a late weekend night, doesn’t care that she has a boyfriend, doesn’t bother with proper dates, and generally doesn’t amount to anything more on a personal level than a “hookup buddy” is, essentially, the king of the collegiate castle. I’m not going to fault men for looking at that reality objectively and deciding that they themselves would like to become that guy. He is the guy that a growing number of college females demand, and he’s naturally the guy that many will get.
Is this demand stemming from the fact that so many of these females have “low self-esteem”? Maybe. Is acknowledging this and changing your behavior in the ways I just described a form or exploitation? Could be. Is that “monstrous”? I suppose so, according to you. Is there another way? Sure, but I’m not going to fault young men for choosing this one.
Those who decide to disengage and avoid all of this have my respect as well.
Well, just go on congratulating yourself for your hateful poison, asshole.
Do you like beating people up? People in wheelchairs are real easy to beat up. And since it’s easy to beat them up, you shouldn’t feel bad about it.
heywhatno I wasn’t encouraging people to beat up people in wheelchairs why would you say that?
Unfortunately for you, the “liberal western context” tends to be right about what sexism is.
And you don’t need to have an overly-broad definition of sexism to see how condoning the exploitation of mentally-ill women is decidedly misogynistic.
(Interestingly, I didn’t even call you “sexist”; I just called you “awful,” even though both labels happen to apply to you. So much for hastily assuming what I mean.)
“I’m far too large of a ‘sexist’ to be considered anything but ‘awful’ in the liberal western context.”
That’s the first thing he’s said that can agree with. Except he’s awful in every context.
You’re awful (no scare quotes needed) in any context. Take your teal deers and fuck off.
I’m not going to tell men to ignore what may very well be the majority of the female populace in their given location.
So when you tell men to “adapt” to mentally ill women, you’re actually telling them to ignore them, not to mistreat and manipulate them. But you would never tell men to ignore mentally ill women.
You should realize both of these statements cannot be true. You’re a member of the rational gender, right?
Ninja’d by grumpycatisagirl.