Pickup artists, classy fellows that they are, are using Elliot Rodger’s killing rampage as a marketing ploy. In the comments to one of Rodger’s videos on YouTube, a company called Strategic Dating Coach offered their solution to prevent similar shootings in the future: send disturbed young men who can’t get dates to one of their coaching sessions!
While this response to Rodger’s mass killing is uniquely crass, the argument that “Game saves lives” is hardly new. To PUAs like Heartiste and Roosh Valizadeh it’s practically an article of faith.
In the wake of George Sodini’s murderous shooting spree in a Pennsylvania gym in 2009, Heartiste (then known as Roissy) wrote
If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.
The fact that Sodini had in fact imbibed in the alleged wisdom of pickup artistry, going so far as attending a pricey seminar from old-school pickup guru R. Don Steele, a self-proclaimed expert on dating young women, didn’t lead any in the pickup community to reconsider this position.
Nor has it this time. It is clear that Elliot Rodger was steeped in “red pill” thinking about women. And while he wasn’t himself a PUA, he was certainly aware of the basics of “Game.” Indeed, he subscribed to a number of PUA channels on YouTube and was a regular commenter on PUAhate, a sleazy forum devoted to criticizing “game,” not because it is manipulative and misogynistic but because it doesn’t work.
On the Roosh V forum earlier today, Roosh acknowledged that Rodger knew at least a little about “red pill” ideology – noting that Rodger referred to himself as an”alpha” – but still went ahead and argued that Game was the solution to massacres like this:
He is self-delusional and massively entitled, but exposing him to game may have saved lives.
In a followup comment, Roosh expressed his concerns for the real victims of this tragedy – Pickup artists:
I’m trying to think of ways our enemies will come after us because of this, but if anything, we’re the solution to this sort of murder rampage. This is the society that progressives wanted, where women are fully able to choose the top 10% of alpha males while shaming masculinity, leaving beta males with modest resources in the dust. Of course they will simply push a ban on guns, but this wholly neglects the cause. Seven people died because this guy couldn’t get laid … .
Other commenters were quick to agree. According to someone known as Moma,
Roosh has a very valid point. This will continue to replay over and over again. As human beings, our wiring is very basic yet primal. …
When have you last heard of a porn star shooting up a place? How many have emptied their balls in a hot lizard and then felt the urge to go and smoke 50 strangers?
According to Samseau, the problem wasn’t that Rodger hadn’t heard the Game Gospel; the problem was that he had rejected his salvation:
He knew about Game. If he had an account on PUAHATE then he knew about game. He was just a denialist. There was no helping this dude.
Roosh seconded this bit of wisdom, seeing it as clear evidence that “game denialism kills.”
Michelin, for his part, hoped that PUAs would be able to use the massacre as a publicity bonanza and a great “told you so” to all the haters.
One should write a mainstream article about this case. The argument that game could have saved lives can be an eye-opener and a smash in the face to haters of game.
Tuthmosis, the man best known for a Return of Kings post on the “5 Reasons to Date a Girl With An Eating Disorder,” reported his joy that PUAhate was getting bad press:
Seeing your enemies fall is a delicious treat you only get to taste a few times in your life. I’m savoring this delicacy with a cup of freshly brewed coffee. It’s a shame real people had to lose their lives, but I can’t help but think this will discredit a horrible website, PUAHate–and a way of thinking–that could have harmed even more men and innocent people. Beta losers will never go away, but this will wake up a few men and, more importantly, scare others.
Zelcorpion blamed “girls” and MGTOWers for giving Rodgers bad dating advice:
I bet a few girls told him that he only needs to be himself, be nice, be a gentleman, have a nice car, looks etc. – only to realize that it mattered shit. Instead of learning from the PUA-community he chose to listen to PUAhaters and some of the anti-female comments of the MGTOWs who themselves are often refusing to accept Game or even basic concepts like Alpha/Beta. I think that problem will become way worse, since hypergamy and promiscuity will only increase and most men will be left in the sexual wasteland.
But it took a relative newcomer to the forum by the handle of thedavidgt to raise the obvious logical objection to the Game-for-everybody solution to incel rage:
If every sexless beta in the world took it upon himself to learn game, approach girls, lift, dress well etc, would it not simply feed women’s egos and entitlement? So instead of occasionally getting awkwardly hit on by skinny fat, poor-dressed chumps, the average 7 would then be approached several times a day by extremely high value men. We’ll have a society of men working to improve themselves for women who will get lazier and lazier while at the same time demanding more and more.
In fact, the “Game saves lives” mantra is dead wrong, but not for this reason. First of all, there is no clear evidence that “game,” per se, works, except insofar as it encourages men to pursue large numbers of women and numb them to the pain of rejection. It’s possible that a few of the conversational ploys invented by various PUAs may work better than having no conversational ploys at all. But there are no magic cheat codes to “getting with women.”
There is one more disturbing way in which “game” may increase “success” with women for unscrupulous men: many of the standard techniques of “game”– invading a woman’s personal space, touching her repeatedly, trying to “isolate” her from her friends – may serve as “tests” to find women who are less likely to resist violations of their boundaries. In this way, “game” may serve as a quite effective enabler of date rape. Indeed Roosh himself has admitted to raping a date too drunk to consent.
So how much of a solution is training a guy who is already filled with a toxic mixture of entitlement and self-loathing (yes, these strange bedfellows do often go together) in some techniques that might help him to tamp down his insecurities enough to manipulate some willing or not-so-willing women into bed?
You might have simply turned a mass killer into a serial rapist, or possibly a serial killer. Ted Bundy was quite the charmer. Somehow this didn’t make him a decent human being.
Even if “game” were the beneficient form of “self-improvement” that some of its proponents like to claim it is, teaching Rodger how to be a better dater would not make him a better person. Would having a girlfriend solve all his problems? Hardly. Relationships require patience and compromise and mutual respect, and Rodger seems to have had none of these qualities. Instead of directing his narcissistic rage at “girls” at large, he would likely have ended up abusing a string of girlfriends.
The problem wasn’t Rodger’s lack of “Game.” It was his lack of humanity.
@Ken L
::eyetwitch::
I can’t even pickout what’s wrong with Ken L here.
There are so many possibilities to choose from, Marie. Clearly you’re just spoiled for choice here.
Ken L.:
Pardon my cynicism, but what exactly in humanity’s long and bloody history of perpetuating violent atrocities on one another, particularly upon less powerful, stigmatized, and minority groups, leads you to believe that killing is not something that is part of human nature?
Marie,
I think Ken is doing the “not all men” thing. I’m getting defensive vibes.
@Ken
You are making two assumptions here.
1) Rationality. Whether or not taking a life is rational is dependent on the circumstance. Further, human’s lives are not dictated solely by logic and rationality.
2)Human nature. Saying killing is not a given to human nature is not actually all that convincing. Humans have been killing humans as long as we have existed. There is evidence for this dating back to the stone ages (if I remember right a stone age human skull was found with a weapon mark and a piece of stone lodged in the skull). While we have decided as a society that murder is not something that we should tolerate, that doesn’t mean that murder is against our nature.
That being said, unless something changes this is the last I’m going to address this since multiple people have asked that this conversation be dropped.
Also, as sparky pointed out, war is still considered completely acceptable in our societies to this day as long as “the cause is just”.
@treehugger
“That misogyny and male entitlement are very real and taken to their logical extreme, this is the result.”
no, none of these are not logical extremes there just logical ends. is that not the point of Laurie Penney article? either misogyny always leads to violence or these examples are extremes. it can’t be both. if this is what misogyny always leads to them I wrong I had no right to ask the questions i did on the other hand if they are extremes them what made them so?
Time for a vote! Does anyone actually want to bother engaging with Ken’s willful stupidity, or should we just ignore him until he goes away?
@cassandra
I might poke him. I already was suspicious of him.
Unless that’d bug the rest of you.
If anyone else wants to take him on then by all means go ahead. I’m all out of patiently explaining things to clueless dudes for today.
@Ken L
get to the point. You’re talking around shit. Just say what you want to say, or drop it. I don’t have time to decipher all your random rambling.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read on the internet today. Well done, Ken.
I did about twenty post ago. you did not care to answer me seriously then and you still don’t now. you already made up your mind no matter what i say or mean you’ll just shit on it. I promise no longer engage you on this site. it only pisses you off and so just leave me alone you fucking won.
@Ken
“answer you seriously”? about what?
Yep, a post about a bunch of women who were murdered by a misogynist is definitely the right place for a tantrum about how the ladies aren’t coddling your feelings attentively enough.
And @stellajames, if you’re patting yourself on the back, right now, for slipping the most ableist post of the day (and that’s been a challenge) past us, way back up there on the previous page of comments, stop.
Your ableism was noticed and you were assessed as an ignorant ass-wipe with the empathy of a stone. Well done for embarrassing yourself so thoroughly.
@titanblue
I missed it, but I probably don’t want to see it.
I’ll send Stellajames a ‘fuck off’ either way.
Meanwhile, justsaying is in the running for Sock of the Day.
Well, I had a nice big thoughtful reply to Ken L., but after seeing that lost post, no, just no.
Dude, nobody knows what you’re going on about. You keep saying “there’s something that sets this asshole misogynist apart from all the other asshole misogynist,” and you were answered multiple times. I have no fucking clue what you’re trying to get at, other than trying to make Rodger out as some kind of aberation, like there’s some other motive for him going out and killing women, when the killer himself stated that he went out and killed women because he hated women. The one thing that sets Rodger apart from all the other asshole misogynist is that he chose to pick up a gun and shoot people. That is all.
I’m starting to think that my theory about the comments on the Penney article may be relevant to Ken’s behavior too.
@sparky
please note that what i said was not directed at you, from day one Marie as had it out for me. that was meant only to her. What I am saying is what brought him to picking up a gun? how can thousand of these people have the same view and not do the same thing? the view his view alone did not get him there would be thing like this happening all the time,
@cassandra
stop lumping me in with other people. I honestly wanted to know why this guy picks up a gun and let say Paul Elam or the spearhead idiot doesn’t? but no, i must be making excuse or distancing myself. you insist that because i ask certain question or say certain I must be doing it for the same reasons most everyone else does. Did you once stop in think maybe that’s not the case?
Hey everybody, I’m not quite caught up on this thread so I hope I’m not repeating what everybody else has already said, I’ve been spending ages trying to get wordpress to accept my comment, if I’m repeating I’m very sorry.
TRIGGER, TRIGGER, TRIGGER!
@LBT, I think this is a study I posted many moons ago:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hojo.12033/full
(Not sure if it’s the one you were referring to.)
Take away quotes:
“In this respect, family annihilation is a crime committed by men as a form of ‘social practice invoked as a resource, when other resources are unavailable, for accomplishing masculinity’”
“In all of this we can see a public demonstration of the violent and controlling personality that Philcox’s ex-partner describes in relation to their former private lives. We can also glimpse the narcissism and drama that seems to have characterised Philcox’s life and death: bombs were to be exploded; he spoke to, and texted, his ex-partner; and all of these events took place on Father’s Day. This was calculated behaviour, rather than Philcox ‘snapping’. The self-pity of his statement that ‘there’s nothing I can do, it is out of my control’, which is, of course, inaccurate in both respects – he could have done something to have stopped these murders and the fact that he chose not to was a decision which he alone made – was a blatant attempt to deflect blame. As with all self-righteous annihilators in this sample, he believed that his ex-partner was at fault for their divorce – a divorce that would leave him with ‘nothing’. As a consequence, he felt entitled to take his children and kill them, as if they were merely another type of possession to be fought over, in much the same way that the fight had already started as to who should have the house, the TV and the car. Philcox did not see his children as sentient beings, with their own hopes, dreams and aspirations; as individuals to be cherished and nurtured, but merely as another extension of how the world didn’t understand him and all that he had done. Ultimately, it was Philcox himself who chose a course of action that would ensure that he was left with ‘nothing’.”
“Our research suggests that family annihilators should be seen as a distinct category of murderer, of which there are specific subcategories. What seems to link each of the subcategories that we have identified is masculinity and the need to exert power and control in situations when the annihilator feels that his masculinity has, in some way, been threatened. For these men, the family role of the father was fundamental to their masculine identities and, prior to the murders, the family had, to some extent, ceased to perform its masculinity-affirming functions for them. Murder, or more bluntly, family annihilation, thus emerges in this sense as a resource to perform masculinity, when other resources have failed, are seen as being inadequate, or do not deliver the desired outcomes. In this way the annihilation makes public what had often been a private reality – a reality masked to family, friends and neighbours who often thought that this man had been a ‘doting’ and ‘loving’ father and ‘dutiful’ husband.
Sadly, we suggest that this is a trend which seems to be increasing. However, our observations are a weak basis on which to consider what can be done to reduce the incidence of family annihilation. After all, children will be – and still should be – given access to estranged fathers, the vast majority of whom would never dream of attacking or killing their children. Marriages and relationships will continue to dissolve. What, therefore, can be done? Clearly, this is a simple question to ask, but a much more difficult one to answer. However, the beginnings of such an answer must relate to gender and a recognition that it is, in the main, men who use violence and will take the lives of their children in this way.”
I realise it’s about family annihilation, but still I think very relevant to the discussion of ‘toxic masculinity’ versus ‘mental illness’.
Haven’t read it for a while so I hope it’s as good as I remember. Apologies if I’ve got anything arse about face.
Go away, Ken, and take your sulk with you.
Ken L.:
They do. Violence against women happens every fucking day, multiple times a day.
shooter: I did it because I want revenge on women for not sleeping with me
Ken L: WHAT *REALLY* MADE HIM PICK UP THE GUN?!