The problem — well, one of the many problems — with a lot of so-called pickup artists is that they think with their dicks, and then use their relatively underpowered brains to rationalize their dickular preferences as The Way The World Should Be.
By contrast, the problems with Lance Christopher, a so-called pickup artist who hangs out in the comments section on Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog, really start when he stops thinking with his dick.
Some dudes roll over and fall asleep the moment after they come; Mr. Christopher contemplates genocide because women don’t want to hear him pontificate about Ukrainian history.
In case you’re wondering, no one else in the discussion suggests that Mr. Christopher’s opinion here might be a teensy bit extreme.
No, the commenters happily share terrible opinion after terrible opinion about the inferior creatures known as women.
Oh, it gets worse.
Cleanup in the pompous misogyny aisle!
You’ll notice that all of these comments have upvotes, by the way.
There may be some even more terrible comments in that thread, but I gave up reading them after a few screens full of this sort of garbage.
In my house women like belly rubs and sitting on the boxes.
And that in a post that basically comes down to “RAWR, ME SO ANGRY AT WOMEN!” written by a man.
@samantha Yes, I think hurting other people for one’s own enjoyment is as close to pure evil as a person can get. Ugh, I should not have read the comments on that RoK article…
“Just as long as they don’t sit around licking their arses in company.” LOL XD
“The biggest mistake the catholic church ever made was in deciding women were actually human.”
The Catholic Church never decided that, it was FORCED TO ADMIT it by the changing times. Reluctantly. And they go back to the old ways whenever people turn their back.
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.
Leave it to MRM “logic” to conclude that:
1. Women who don’t meet their criteria for a partner have to change, but also
have to do the changing when men don’t meet women’s criteria for a partner. o_O
2. Women reject them for not having qualities that they want in a partner, but a better,
new and improved model will lower their standards and want them.
I think logic just took on a whole new meaning.
When they talk about the different things women aren’t capable of doing, one thing stands out very firmly:
They do not read anything written by women.
Book of philosophy by a woman? Can’t read it, they’re no good at it. Engineering? Science? Psychology? Hell, even a novel?
If you read it, you puncture the veil.
That’s why Harlan Ellison could so confidently talk about the ‘ineluctable masculinity’ of James Tiptree–because the idea that a woman could write was laughable to him, and so he was absolutely sure James had to be a man. (spoiler: she wasn’t)
If he’d been reading other things women wrote, he would have known better. But he didn’t.
They don’t.
They can’t.
It would destroy them.
Here are my two cents on Catholic stuff.
I was raised by a strongly Catholic family, in a strongly Catholic country, which also happens to be Pope Francis’ homeland.
Catholic education was the cause of much of my suffering as I grew up, and was the vehicle to teach me misoginy, gender stereotypes and mandatory heterosexuality. When I see a load of shit coming from the Catholic church, it’s very hard for me not to take it personal, because for decades it was personal.
Maybe not all catholics are bigots, true that, but there’s more to it than a management/whole dichotomy.
First of all, for most of history, the Catholic church was nothing but the hierarchy. Much like feudal lords (scratch that, exactly like feudal lords) the “management” of the church was dedicated to domination and opression of people who worked for them. They only alowed Catholicism as an expression of faith/spirituality, so people had to settle for it (or, you know, be set on fire alive and other nice things).
I do not think pointing out the atrocities commited from the hierarchy of the church is “catholic bashing”. There are quotes from the Malleus Maleficarum, and that was the Catholic official and non-optional doctrine.
This is not the same as denying there are good Catholics out there.
But honestly, being part of (and probably financially supporting) an institution which either leaded or closely participated in most of the western genocides, as well as activley lobbying against a hell lot of people’s rights all over the world, awakes no sympathy in me.
Maybe the original teachings of Christ can be worth living by (not for me, but for others does work nicely), however, there is no erasing or ignoring the enormous harm the Catholic church, as an institution, has done to the world.
There have always been “good Catholics”, and there are examples in my country of Third World Priests who have always worked with the poorest to regain their dignity (and not just be handed charity), and I know many kind-hearted people, and even human right’s activists, who are also fervient Catholics.
But even them, with their presence, their personal preaching, their money, are supporting an enormous monster which fights against the very things they support.
If I belogned to any institution whether political, religious, scientific, or anything, and I realised the management is truly fucked up, I would either leave for good or fight that management from all possible fronts: confrontating the leaders, calling for marches against fucked up shit, working from the inside to gain power within the institution itself.
That’s not what I see from most “good” Catholics, but a great support of the Church as an institution (maybe not universal, but always present at a local level).
As for Pope Francis, I don’t really think he (or anyone) can or wants to “fix” all the horrendous stuff going on inside the church (which is a lot).
The distance from the Catholic church and a decent institution is simmilar to the distance between PUAs/MRAs and a decent human being. It’s worth making the effort to reduce that distance, of course, but it also reveals how fucked up it is to begin with.
@Howard Bannister: That was Robert Silverberg, not Harlan Ellison. But yeah, he did look pretty foolish when it all came out.
The real tragedy is not that there exist guys who think like that, the real tragedy is that their thoughts about women have been put into practice historically and currently around the world.
@cendare:
Hmm, and after I went and googled to make sure it was Ellison… But then trusted that because I was getting all these articles mentioning both Ellison and the quote that meant it was him. Whoops, my fact-checking ability.
….why does this guy think that this woman is an idiot because she admits ignorance about a complicated issue that isn’t her specialty rather than just bullshitting something about it?
I worry a lot about how many guys with this mentality are hiring managers.
Where I used to work there was an executive director who surrounded himself with a “cabinet” of IT leaders who reported directly to him. They were, of course, all younger males who he promoted to newly-created directorship positions. There were three female directors and a very loud noise was made by the institution about supporting “women in IT” but of course the three women directors were not hired or promoted by this executive director. They were legacy hires of the former executive director who had a more liberal attitude and who had retired, so the new executive director was stuck with them, resented them, and they knew that. It was plain as day.
There were also several female IT managers and subject matter experts in the organization, but the newer executive director’s attitude towards them consisted mainly of winking, flirting, and dismissiveness. Several of them complained to HR, of course nothing got done. Eventually a new CIO with a better attitude came in and the women’s careers were unfrozen, and the archaic executive director was demoted publicly to the point where he felt inspired to “retire” in his early 50s, but a new CIO and a ton of complaints over the better part of a decade is what it took to unseat him.
The next time some jerk points out, “If women are so smart how come they don’t get anywhere and achieve anything much?” guys like the dearly departed executive director I knew might be a big part of the reason. Women just didn’t get promoted (or even hired often) on his watch. I was one of the lower ranking female managers, and my ideas and achievements were openly stolen and handed over to males as soon as I’d established them. This happened to other women there as well. Many young men have my stuff on their resumes now as a result.
I did wake my husband by biting him this morning.
That’s a bit cat-ish.
The dogs would have barked him wake.
Maybe I should try that tomorrow.
Maybe I’ll do my best rendition of this:
He’ll be so happy to know that I’m learning how to be a more likable person by being more doggy like.
@ scarlettpipstrelle
Ew. That guy sounds about as pleasant as a hairy dingle berry. Glad you and your work place are rid of him.
I’m lucky in that my company’s IT department is small and mostly women. Not very many POC, but some. I haven’t experienced any sexist attitudes at work yet, and everyone is pleasant and helpful.
Last time I had to deal with someone like your ex-executive director was High School, and I created such a stir I made Hades’ swirly soul pit of doom look like a pleasant dip in a hot tub.
Well, one thing he engineered before he left was my layoff, but I’ve kept in touch and it’s definitely a better place than it used to be. And my star is rising in a new company now. So it all worked out. But women’s careers were absolutely frozen for a time there.
He heard the barking coming from the speakers and one of our sons barking along. He came to check on us and I told him of my plan.
Either his coffee tasted funny, or he really didn’t prefer the barking.
Wow, who’d have thunk it? The misogynist scum buckets were wrong again.
Then, Hubby prefers cats. I’m the dog lover in the house.
One thing that happened tangentially as a result of the executive director was that a guy in my department was able to fly under the radar. I’m not a qualified psychologist but I would bet the rent that he was some degree of sociopath because of how he conducted himself. EVERYTHING that Babiak and Hare described in “Snakes and Suits” he did. But everyone higher up liked the cut of the guy’s jib: he was a glib young talker, airline pilot looks, so must be ok, right? At the time of his “ascension” phase, his bodycount was: 2 pink slips (me and another director who saw through him), two people demoted so badly they really had no choice to leave (the exec. director and our mutual boss who was another director) and today he has his boss’s former office, former job, and former title. But hey, he was a guy, a glad-hander, and had the amazing ability to approach higher-ups and chat them up (as our mutual boss observed ominously), and nobody seemed to see all his bungled projects, his taking credit for other people’s success, and his setting up rivals to make them look bad, and his gossiping. It’s like those things were invisible. An uncanny experience I hope to never have again. Even when I caught him red handed in a deception, his nonchalance was absolutely chilling. The ideal world of the MRAs would be a fertile field for such people, as long as they were male.
Robert,
I know. The official stances make me want to tear my hair out. I’m encouraged by all the parishioners and clergy members who are actively involved in changing this. What bugs me the most is there are so many members who just stay silent even though they don’t agree. They just accept it and somehow rationalize, and/or roll their eyes at the parochial rules, but enjoy the community, etc. my friend’s daughter who attends catholic school wrote an essay about gay marriage (for it) and got an A. And then the same school has a right to life fundraiser. It’s so weird.
I’m still wondering what a “better replacement” would be in these guys’ minds.
A woman just as inferior as the current ones, only not so uppity? Or maybe just a disembodied vagina?
They sound like they would despise any “alternate” mating-thingy, whatever form it may take.
It’s almost like toxic masculinity is all about despising anything that is not male (because if it’s not male it can’t be “someone”, duh)
Off topic but the comments in this article are making me throw up in my mouth a little. http://gawker.com/james-franco-tried-to-hook-up-with-a-17-year-old-on-ins-1557491436/all
RE: Alice
I guess my BS-in-progress was just a fluke?
My mother was a biologist, originally. (Then lack of work sent her through a stream of various other jobs, most notably pharmaceutical rep work.) Guess she was just a fluke too!
RE: girlsmarts
it would probably send any of the MRA guys into a rage spiral since they like to claim state support and funding is the poison that has made females so autonomous and “hypergamous”.
I’m a trans guy actually, but in their minds I’m probably female. (It’s hard to tell; they waffle harder than IHOP.)
I swear, I never piss off more people than when I have the audacity to enjoy my life and not apologize for existing. It’s like, how DARE I use government funding to keep myself housed and fed? The nerve of me!
Also, I will be the first to admit that until my health wrecked me for good, I never found a job that paid me more than $11 an hour (and even then, it was part-time only), and never one even remotely associated with my field. However, the nice part is: I write! And I’ve discovered a background in linguistics is incredibly useful when you write sci-fi and fantasy, because it allows you to make up languages that don’t sound obviously fake.
RE: scarlettpipstrelle
Ugh, that’s really creepy, and in some way makes me glad I’m disabled and have a job that leaves me beholden to nobody but my audience. I really don’t have the stamina or numbness to pull that kind of shit off, and I never want to!
Stepford Wives.
Well, Stepford Wives aren’t really very different from the sexbots of their dreams, so I think you’re right 🙂
That Franco link is a brilliant rebuttal to the usual “If it were she wouldn’t be creeped out.