Oh, dear. Our old friend Roosh – the rapey, racist expat pickup guru – seems to be having some sort of existential crisis. In a new post titled “Men Are Nothing More Than Clowns To The Modern Woman,” – yes, really – he laments the sad fact that women are no longer forced to rely on men.
There is definitely not a single woman alive in the Western world who needs a man. While in the past a woman had to put forth effort to obtain a husband who would help her survive, today she is protected by a welfare state that ensures she will never go hungry or spend one night on the street.
The HORROR!
Well, Roosh can rest easy, because, at least in the United States, his nightmare of women not going hungry or being forced to sleep on the streets is just that, a bad dream. Presumably he will be pleased to learn that lots of women (and children) go hungry. Lots of women (and children) are homeless.
Even a child she has out of wedlock from a drunken night out will not have to suffer from her mistake, and that’s in spite of the fact that many nations already provide her with free contraception to compensate for her lack of judgement in selecting worthy mates.
A tad ironic coming from a dude who constantly brags about “raw dogging” it – that is, having sex without a condom – with drunk women he’s just met.
Anything required for a woman’s survival or pleasure can be easily achieved without her having to put forth commitment, sacrifice, or labor. She can shave her head, gain 50 pounds, and disfigure herself with tattoos yet still have many suitors to—at the minimum—have sex on demand.
Such a terrible injustice, that women Roosh finds unattractive are actually able to have sex.
Her food and shelter will be provided by a state which has embarked on an extraordinary effort to compete with men for her devotion and loyalty.
So instead of looking for women who say that they “need a man,” Roosh has begun to focus on women who say that they “want a man.” Unfortunately, when he’s asked women if they want a man, “[o]nly in a few instances did a woman outright say yes, and these usually happened in Ukraine.”
Huh. Not sure that’s a real scientific poll there kiddo, as I imagine that very few women are going to answer “yes” to that question when it’s asked of them by this guy:
Anyhoo, so all this has given poor old Roosh a sad. Because women who don’t need men, who actually have options in their lives, are less interested in jumping into traditional long-term relationships than those with few options in life other than hooking themselves to a male provider.
And so, Roosh has sadly concluded, the typical young women of today
will treat you as a distraction to her more important job, girls’ nights out, and social networking validation happy time. Men have become an utterly replaceable and expendable commodity in a girl’s life. Her interest in a man is not unlike her interest in a new television show or Apple product … .
Huh. Or perhaps this is because you’re dating women at least a decade younger than you, in their early 20s, and this is how people in their early 20s often approach dating?
When I look at myself in the mirror, I don’t see a man who has improved himself over the years to be the best that his genes allow—I see a glittery skirt that a girl encounters in the mall.
You see a what now?
Is the skirt too expensive or is it on sale? Is there only one left of her size or is the rack full of them? Does she already have something similar or is it totally novel? Does her friends think it’s cute or just alright? After trying it on, does it flatter her body or make her look fat?
Dude, this metaphor really isn’t working for you.
We are like glittery pieces of fashion to women—items that she truly doesn’t need. Not only has she already collected so many of them, but she can easily obtain more within walking distance from where she lives. She can even browse online from home while in her pajamas through a nearly unlimited selection.
Oh no! WOMEN HAVE CHOICES!
We are not men in the traditional sense—we are clowns.
Well, some men are.
With our tight game we have to be entertainers who create drama and excitement in a girl’s life, just long enough so that she spreads her legs and makes sexy noises, and even though she did commit such an intimate act with us, she will soon lose interest or simply get bored, and then move on to the next shiny cock that catches her eye.
Gosh, who would imagine that the women you have one-night-stands with after meeting them in a bar would treat you like a one-night-stand?
Also, if your penis is actually shiny, you might want to check with your doctor about that.
The other side of this coin is that we no longer need women. We don’t need them to maintain our home or cook good meals for us. We don’t need them in an age where having children is no longer important or valued.
That is true. Men are not incapable of cooking. I can even manage a grilled cheese sandwich once in a while. And, no, you’re not obligated to have kids. Heck, as a man you can get away with not having kids and not even have to take a lot of shit about it.
Whatever natural connection that once existed between the sexes has now been severed. Neither sex needs each other so we dedicate ourselves to corporations, entertainment, and base pleasures instead, and this is a great tragedy that most people believe is a sign of progress, a cause for celebration.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I think Roosh think’s he’s had some sort of profound insight here. All because the 22-year-old women he spends his life pursuing don’t seem interested in properly genuflecting to him as a real man.
For the next girl I meet, I’m not going to ask her if she needs a man, because I know she doesn’t. Instead I will simply ask her if she wants a man, and if the answer leans yes, I will perform like the good clown I am so that she is entertained enough to have sex with me. Either she or I will eventually get bored and the relationship will end. Then I will simply repeat my performance on a someone new, because I’m a skilled clown, and that’s exactly what women today want.
You do that, Roosh, honey. Just try to make sure she’s actually sober enough to consent to your “performance” first. I know you have a little trouble with that.
Here’s a little video for Roosh to watch the next time he’s feeling down.
The idea that a shrinking population is always terrible is just not very smart. Sure, it can cause economic problems, but a continually growing population is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. The planet has a limited carrying capacity. It would really be better if we as a species didn’t test what the exact limit of that capacity is. Given how much bigger a chunk of those limited resources each person in a highly developed country consumes compared to each person in a less developed country, the fact that the birth rate is falling in many developed countries is a good thing.
(Which still doesn’t solve Japan’s social security issue, but there’s a lot more going on with that than the sort of “herbivore guys are just like us and hate women and see that means that feminism is doomed!” shit that clueless woman-hating dudes keep puking all over the comments on feminist blogs.)
Leftwingfox: So do all European countries, though. But the Scandinavians are slightly less bad off than the rest. And it would be rather silly to compare Norway to, say, Mali or Thailand. Comparisons within Europe are much more meaningful.
And shrinking populations *are* a problem, especially if it happens at European or Japanese rates. Who will take care of the elderly – and more importantly, who will pay for them? The entire pensions system here is built upon the assumption of population growth, basically. Sure, *globally* we may have some problems with overpopulation, but “global carrying capacity” is a bit of a simplification. What matters more is how much single regions or countries can endure population growth. And here the problem is that many developing countries cannot economically endure the high population growth rates they have, while industrialized countries could endure a much higher population growth rate – and would in fact benefit from it.
LOL
Slightly off-topic, but after reading the comment thread, I hoped I could ask: Is “egalitarian” now code for “basically MRA without admitting it”?
I ask because I study theology, and the theological position of believing that God does not prefer men over women is known as “egalitarianism”. If that term is being widely internet-ized into something else, I’m going to have to figure out how to be clearer about which one I’m representing.
The internet does seem to be transforming “egalitarian” into “neener neener I’m so much better at social justice than you stupid femazis”.
At worst the people who claim egalitarian or equalist on the internet are just trying to cover up the fact that they’re MRA’s or some other kind of bigot. At best, they are ridiculously naïve and are buying into the just world fallacy.
Regarding Japan, don’t they have one of the strictest immigration policies in the world? Letting some young immigrants into the country would be a much easier way to alleviate their demographic problems than trying to force women into giving up their jobs and lives to become traditional housewives.
I know that’s easy for me to say because I’m American and our national identity isn’t based on any specific ethnicity and our immigration policies are fairly liberal (not that aren’t still many problems with them). It does seem that other countries – not just Japan, many European countries too could do with loosening immigration policies if they face problems due to low fertility rates.
Of course, racists here wring their hands over the fact that this country is getting browner and white people aren’t having enough babies to balance that out. Letting immigrants into a country always seems to lead to reactionary racism.
“Even a child she has out of wedlock from a drunken night out will not have to suffer from her mistake”
in the realm of Insane Libertarian Counter-Logic, this is amazing. They just get so ANGRY about people acting “unconventionally,” they want not only the individual to suffer, but also innocent children. Meanwhile, these same people will turn around and bemoan that no one understands that government intervention is the only thing keeping everyone from having an equally fair chance.
Considering that they’ve run “you better start having babies or we’ll have to let foreigners in” public education campaigns, I really doubt that immigration is a solution that the public will accept in Japan.
@ Auggz
You have to love that particular piece of racist dumbassery. Yep, Asian men are too “effeminate” to make babies, and that’s why there are a billion people in China.
What a weirdo. I wonder if he ever looks around and notices that people from many walks of life are busy going about their lives, having meaningful relationships of both a sexual and nonsexual nature, all without taking any of his stupid advice? Maybe he just handwaves that off somehow.
Also, demographic timebomb! Ha! Do people ever look back in history further than 1955?! I suppose not. Human population is higher than it has EVER been, and still growing, and people are worried that we are under-reproducing! I have a pretty big family by current standards, so I’m not a dour ZPG kind of person. But with a population of 7 billion, everyone doesn’t have to knock themselves out to bear and raise 2.5 or 6 or 12 kids if they’d rather not. Evidence suggests that when faced with viable options, most of us would actually rather not marry at 19 and work 12 hour days to feed six kids til we can marry them off in turn. People talk about a tidal wave of seniors being expensive and demanding to care for. So is a tidal wave of kids!
Japan seems like a great example. Last I checked, median population estimates put them in 2100 around the levels they had in 1940. Hardly extinct. Far as I know, it is not like Japan’s government is coercing people into having fewer kids than they want, but the people themselves choose to have fewer kids and invest a lot into the few they do have.
Live and let live, ignorant jerkazoids.
No. Is it anything not predictable?
This isn’t exactly contributing to the current discussion, but this whole Roosh thing reminds me of those comments someone wrote on the Ferrel’s Follies article a few days ago (I think it was cassandrakitty?), talking about how it would probably break the brains of PUA-types if women actually WERE okay with just having casual sex and then were completely done with the man afterwards.
Case in freaking point.
*Farrell’s -__-
And now you see why I chose this nym.
Huh.
So I just finished reading the Handmaid’s Tale, because what else am I going to do on a Tuesday (Although really, I just wanted a short break from working on my time machine) and it keeps occurring to me that all those jokes about how the MRA and PUA really seem to just want to live in that world is… pretty much spot on (at least very specifically that fun bit with “Well, according to the stats, the marriage rate was plummeting, so we went ahead and set up an oppressive theocracy! Yay for proactive problem solving, now let’s play more scrabble)
Kyriarchy theory is racist! Pick-Up Guru’s complaining about women being available for casual sex! You must pass endless shittests to sleep with those women who are also sluts you must shame for endlessly sleeping with everyone! And keeping all of the above in mind will help you fight the communist menace!
God the MRA mindset is odd. I’ve never quite encountered hate on such a banal yet complex level before.
Because they don’t think rape is wrong.
@trans_commie
Marriage IS the cornerstone of a hetero-cis-sexist society.
Some people simply want all societies to be like that.
As to what kind of people, that’s a whole different story….
I could not agree more! In the bad old days, women married because there were damned few options. And a woman who wanted a kid but did not want the dude who was supposed to go with it? That was right out!
Family is changing, or, rather, the definitions and shapes of family are changing and I think that that can only be a good thing. There will always be marriage of the more traditional sort for people like me, who CHOOSE to build a life with one other person, kids optional.
I see all kinds of families now, and the important thing is that love, compassion and friendship have more ways to be expressed.
Are you serious? Do you REALLY believe that creating new and different forms of family is a bad thing?
I could not disagree more. And if “civilization” is so fragile that simply expanding “acceptable” options and creating more ways to experience family and love, then that civilization deserves to fall. We either grow up and make room for all kinds of families or we re-create the unacceptable and vile days when choice itself was deemed evil.
I live in Japan and there are people going out, having kids and getting married. Interestingly, all the families I personally know have one or two kids. I walk past streams of kids (going to school/daycare) on the way to work … so there are kids … at least in my bit of Tokyo.
I do think married mums have it tough here though. While my collegues don’t openly complain (as it is seen to be rude) from comments, it seems that my collegues that are married and mums do the lion’s share of the childcare/housework. If people don’t want to put up with all the extra work (and so have no or fewer kids) I don’t blame them.
In terms of japanese immigration policy, I don’t see that changing any time soon. For example, the government had a policy aimed at trying to get people who were ethnically japanese (but born elsewhere) to leave and not come back. 🙁
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1892469,00.html
(I can’t remember how to link websites so the above is plain text)
I love these idiots talking about civilization collapsing.
You know what happens to the people when a civilization collapses? Nothing. They keep living their lives like they always have. There’s a reason the languages spoken on the yucatan penninusla are all Mayan- because when the Mayan civilization “collapsed” everyone just moved.
I can’t remember where I read it, but I remember a sci fi short story where civilization collapses and nobody notices. The electricity turns back on after a couple days, because all the engineers have nothing better to do than keep going to work. In short, everyone just keeps doing their thing, which is what actually makes civilization happen.
I’m laaaaaaate because y’all move threads FAST here!
Anyway, as awful as the whole “women should need a man” thing is, I think asking “Do you want a man?” reveals way more about how this asshole sees women than even he knows.
If I were asked that, my response would be basically “Uh…????” because I don’t want “a man” as though anything man-shaped would be fine. Do I want a partner? Do I want someone funny? Do I want a co-parent? Do I want someone who shares my values? Do I want someone with whom I have enough common interests to share, and enough different interests to maintain an interesting conversational life?
Having a great partner is better than not having a great partner (for people who want partners, natch), but having no partner is way better than having a shitty one. The question is dumb. I don’t see men as interchangeable. Luckily, I don’t need one either, so I can avoid the ones who see women as interchangeable.
I cannot even BEGIN to express how disgusted, outraged and just plain grossed out I am by this. I am positively shaking right now.
I hope, in the names of every force for good that has ever been or will be in the world that this guy gets caught and put away…forever!
Precisely BECAUSE they see themselves as the moral high ground. Since they are, they can do no wrong. Therefore, since they rape, rape is consensual sex. Oh, and since men are biologically wired to spread their seed far and wide, it is a moral wrong to call rape on them.
Makes perfect sense…to a morally bankrupt degenerate who desperately needs to convince himself of his superiority in order to justify simply getting upright (pun intended) in the morning.
I like that – calling him and those like him Omegas. Those are the BOTTOM wolves in a pack…the ones that the other wolves are allowed to tease and chase away from the best food. The Alpha will protect the Omega from serious damage, but that is about all.
These guys really are bottom feeders.